ee cee et nt eta oe 

eae es me — 

et oe ae = 
ee eens aa 


SS 


SS ee 


ea he cies 
SOT ers, 


Se, 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/ourunitarianheri0Owilb 









re 


DENY Ihe 
aby \ mat 


{ wf Ls ioe , Ay ae t 
a Ay a a i » 7 sh 4 17 } 
4 i AC . AY ae er vn ‘ vn 


. f q! ; 
; rr) in oa 
Pie ee i 
ba ya, | wn 4 HEE ali 
p ‘eke St 4 
Csi the wie er iv ' 
ae Ml j yi : ¥ Dl aA ee if ae i m4 
anny ; Wd om at) ‘iy ; 0 sy, ve 
i . 1 4 A " Y wage a) ie ite Ai , iM vay ¥ at 
a ' iy a ‘a iy A J 
4 yt vray a f ara a 





4 Pita 
! « + 
; - : i 4 i 
> > i i : ¢ 
Zz ~ <4 Lab! 7 +? : ; ~~ 
17 i ' v an | v j 
7 a Ryire A‘ 
i i an Auk hs 
; } ' a iy 1a MA 
( uf s rt f 
: : Coa ; Porm 
‘ ; ry 
a. as he ay | 
) : fii ‘Ae - ty 
it ; ee ae) , 

, 4 \ ‘ae see) 
. | AG he j 
wae » * ; ual Dh 

a ‘ ips 

f 
i 


av: a2 Ch Us ATELY, oy) ee 
L 


o* aE vanes a cee ve Re 


‘ ‘ ~ hs ° 
3 ae i i = 5 s - i ae | q Lo we 

\! ‘< = f ’ ' i 
i se a3 z a) ; > © wus t ; i bi ve As 


ey a Pea POR | ie ay fae i) vi wi ween ene 


q an | at ie bap a. Ue) rane) ana Rieke ih: on iy eh as 
Ma . ke fas ; ya vs \ J eS gue yyy ‘ } 














Sh 


>, 





od 





AN 
\ 


OUR UNI TA RI Ake! sica sent” 


HERITAGE 


An Introduction to the 
History of the Unitarian Movement 






BY a 
EARL MORSE WILBUR 


PRESIDENT OF THE PACIFIC UNITARIAN SCHOOL 
FOR THE MINISTRY 





BOSTON 
RH ESBEACONSPRESSWINe: 


25 BEACON STREET 


~~avWd fi icin : 
AN UF Hiei, yl, 





| 
€ 
‘ ‘ 
A 
p 
a 
> 4 
a ae 
ik | : 
.. ¥ 
< 
d 
ie 
| 
t« ue 
* 
7 
a 
ssid 
Fy 
es 
/ 
’ 
q 
‘ 
ci 
we'd 
i“ 
In 
' 
> : 








Yep 1925, By 
THE BEACON PRESS, inch 





All rights reserved 


PRINTED IN U. 8. A. 


PREFACE 


The present work has been prepared by request of the 
Department of Religious Education as a part of The Beacon 
Course. No one else can regret so much as the author that 
the preparation of it has been so long protracted; but the 
collection and working over a vast amount of material in 
nine different languages, which was essential to a satisfactory 
product, has involved great difficulties, and the whole has had 
to be done subject to the prior demands of an exacting office. 

The work is primarily designed for the use of young 
people presumed to be sixteen or seventeen years of age, and 
this fact has of course dictated scope, selection of materials, 
and method of treatment. It has been necessary to study 
the utmost compression consistent with a just treatment of 
the subject, and even now the work is longer by half than 
would have been desirable. Much more space should be 
given to the doctrinal element which has bulked so large in 
the actual movement, but this would not have been to the 
purpose intended. It would also have been desirable to 
quote generously from authorities used, to give full references 
to sources, and to state convincing reasons for positions 
taken; but these things would have served another public 
than the one for which the work was designed. Despite these 
limitations, however, the author would say that he has writ- 
ten as far as possible directly from the sources, and has 
used every endeavor to make his work as careful and accurate 
as if its display of scholarship were greater. 


In the nearly forty years since the publication of Pro- 
ili 


1V PREFACE 


fessor Allen’s Historical Sketch (the only work hitherto that 
could make any real claim to being a history of Unitarian- 
ism), many new sources have been brought to light, and much 
has been published bearing especially on the European phases 
of the subject. The present work is therefore able to give 
for the first time in English much interesting and important 
material; and in spite of its being somewhat elementary in 
scope and popular in form, the author ventures to hope that 
it may be found quite the most adequate treatment of the 
subject as yet produced. If permitted, however, to continue 
his studies in this field, he hopes some years hence to present 
a work much more complete, and duly fortified with all the 
authorities that a history should give. 

For assistance given him the author is indebted to more 
kind friends than can be named here; but he wishes especially 
to acknowledge his obligation to the following persons who 
have read one or other of the several divisions in manuscript, 
and have made many helpful suggestions: the Rev. William 
Laurence Sullivan of New York; the Rev. Alexander Gordon 
of Belfast, Ireland; Professor George Rapall Noyes of the 
University of California; Professor Stanislaw Kot of the 
University of Krakow, Poland; Professor George Boros of 
the Unitarian College, Kolozsvar, Transylvania; Professors 
J. Estlin Carpenter and James Edwin Odgers of Manchester 
College, Oxford ; and the late Rev. William Channing Gannett 
of Rochester, N. Y. . 

It is hoped that the Index will facilitate the use of the 
work, and especially the pronunciation of the large number 
of foreign names occurring in the text. 

Rome, March 7, 1925. 


IMPORTANT DATES IN UNITARIAN HISTORY 


THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH 


CH15U 
c. 260 
318-380 
325 

380 


381 
388 


431 
451 


Apostles’ Creed composed. 

Paul of Samosata and Sabellius flourish. 

The Arian Controversy. 

Council of Nicza: the Nicene Creed adopted. 

Theodosius makes acceptance of the doctrine of the 
Trinity compulsory. 

Council of Constantinople adopts the revised Nicene 
Creed. 

Arianism suppressed in the Western Roman Empire. 

Council of Ephesus. 

Council of Chalcedon. 


c. 460 ? Athanasian Creed composed, 


THE REFORMATION AGE: Pioneer UNITARIANS 


1509 
1510 
1511 
ec. 1515 
1516 
1517 
1525 
1526 


1527 


1530 
1531 
1532 
1539 
1542 
1550 
1553 


Calvin born. 

Francis David born. 

Servetus born. 

Biandrata born. 

Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. 

Beginning of the Protestant Reformation. 

Rise of Anabaptism. 

Equal toleration granted in the Grisons to Protestants 
and Catholics. 

Cellarius publishes the earliest book against the doctrine 
of the Trinity. 

Diet of Augsburg; the Augsburg Confession. 

Servetus publishes De Trinitatis Hrroribus. 

Servetus publishes Dialogues on the Trinity. 

Order of Jesuits founded. Faustus Socinus born. 

Italian Inquisition established. 

Anabaptist Council at Venice accepts humanity of Christ. 

Servetus publishes Christianismi Restitutio: condemned to 

Vv 


vi DATES IN UNITARIAN HISTORY 


1562 
1563 
1564 


1566 


death at Vienne; burned at the stake at Geneva, 
October 27. 

Lelius Socinus dies at Ziirich. 

Ochino publishes Dialogues and is banished from Ziirich, 

Calvin dies at Geneva. Ochino is banished from Poland 
and dies in Moravia. 

Helvetic Confession adopted by the Swiss churches. 
Gentile beheaded at Bern. 


POLAND AND SOCINIANISM 


1546 Antitrinitarianism first appears in Poland. 

1555 Gonesius attacks the doctrine of the Trinity of Sece- 
min. 

1558 Biandrata comes from Geneva to Poland. 

Pinczow Reformed Church becomes Antitrinitarian. 

1563 Biandrata leaves Poland for Transylvania. 

1564 Jesuits enter Poland. 

1565 Diet of Piotrkow: Minor Reformed Church organized. 

1569 Rakow founded. 

1570 Consensus Sandomiriensis. : 

1573 Pax Dissidentiwm establishes religious toleration in 
Poland. 

1574 Schomann’s Catechism published in Poland. 

1579 Faustus Socinus comes to Poland. 

1588 Socinus unites all the Antitrinitarian factions at the 
Synod of Brest. 

1591 Socinian meeting-place at Krakow destroyed by a mob. 

1598 Socinus mobbed at Krakow. Ostorod and Wojdowski 
introduce Socinianism into Holland. 

1603 Socinus dies at Luclawice. 

1605 Racovian Catechism published. 

1611 Jan Tyskiewicz burned at the stake at Warsaw. 

1616 Socinian students expelled from Altorf. 

1638 Socinians driven from Rakow. 

1658 Polish Diet decrees banishment of Socinians. 

1660 Socinians finally banished from Poland, July 10. 

1742 Last persecution of Socinians in Holland. 

1784 Socinian church at Kolozsvar disbands. 

1811 Socinianism becomes extinct in Prussia. 

TRANSYLVANIA 
1510 Francis David born. 
1540 John Sigismund born. 


1555 
1557 


1558 


1563 


1564 
1566 


1568 


1569 
1571 


1574 


1578 
1579 


1603 
1638 
1660 
1691 
1693 
1716 
1780 
1781 
1821 


1857 


1873 


ENGLAND 


c. 1380 
1525 
1534 
1550 


DATES IN UNITARIAN HISTORY vii 


David becomes Lutheran. 

David become Lutheran bishop. Diet of Torda decrees 
equal toleration to Protestants and Catholics. 

Thomas Aran publishes a book against the doctrine of 
the Trinity. 

Biandrata comes from Poland to Transylvania. Diet of 
Torda extends toleration to Calvinists. 

David becomes Reformed bishop. 

David begins open opposition to the doctrine of the 
Trinity. Trinity debated at Gyulafehervar and Torda. 

Debate on Trinity at Gyulafchervar, March 8-17. Kolozs- 
var becomes Unitarian. David successfully pleads 
for full toleration at Diet of Torda. David becomes 
Unitarian bishop. Unitarian Church in Transylvania 
organizes. : 

Debate on Trinity at Nagyvarad, October 10-15. 
Rights of the Unitarian Church confirmed at Diet of 
Maros Vasarhely. John Sigismund dies, March 15. 
George Alvinczi hanged in Hungary for denying the 
doctrine of the Trinity. 

Socinus comes from Basel to Kolozsvar. 

David is tried for innovation, condemned, and dies in 
prison, November 15. 

Moses Szekely killed in battle. 

Complanatio Deesiana adopted. 

Polish exiles arrive at Kolozsvar. 

Diploma Leopoldinum issued. 

Unitarians lose their school at Kolozsvar. 

Unitarians lose the great church at Kolozsvar. 

Joseph II issues Edict of Toleration. 

Szent Abrahami’s Summa Theologie published. 

English and Transylvenian Unitarians discover each 
other. 

Austrian government attempts to destroy Unitarian 
schools. 

Unitarian church organized at Budapest. 


Wyclif’s translation of the Bible. 

Tyndale’s New Testament. 

The English Reformation. 

Church of the Strangers established in London, 


viil DATES IN UNITARIAN HISTORY 


1651 
1565 
1612 


1615/6 
1647 
1648 

1651/2 


1654 
1655 
1662 
1662 
1676 
1687 
1689 
1695 
1698 
1702 
1703 
1712 
1719 
1723 
1735 
1766 
1772 
1774 
1783 
1791 
1794 
1804 
1806 
1808 
1813 
1817 
1819 
1825 


1828 
1830-42 
1844 
1871 


Dr. George van Parris burned at the stake. 

Aconzio’s Stratagems of Satan published. 

Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman burned at 
the stake. 

John Bidle born. 

Bidle’s XII. Arguments. 

Bidle’s Confession of Faith. 

Racovian Catechism published in London and ordered 
burned. 

Bidle’s Twofold Catechism. 

Bidle banished to the Scilly Islands. 

Bidle dies, September 22. 

Act of Uniformity. 

Law for burning of heretics repealed in England. 

Nye’s Brief History of the Unitarians. 

Toleration Act. 

Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity. 

Blasphemy Act. 

Emlyn’s Humble Inquiry. 

Emlyn is imprisoned at Dublin. 

Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. 

Exeter Arian Controversy. Salters’ Hall Assembly. 

Theophilus Lindsey born. 

Joseph Priestley born. 

Blackburne’s Confessional. 

Feathers’ Tavern Petition. 

Lindsey opens Essex Hall Chapel, April 17. 

Society for Promoting Knowledge of the Scriptures. 

Unitarian Book Society. Birmingham riots. 

Priestley emigrates to America. 

Priestley dies. 

Unitarian Fund. 

Improved Version of the New Testament. 

Blasphemy Act repealed. 

Wolverhampton Chapel case. 

Association for Protection of Civil Rights of Unitarian 

British and Foreign Unitarian Association formed, 
May 25. 

Repeal of Test and Corporation Acts. 

Lady Hewley Case. 

Dissenters’ Chapels Act. 

Tests abolished at English universities, 


DATES IN UNITARIAN HISTORY 1x 


AMERICA 


1740 
1785 
1805 


1815 
1818-20 
1819 
1825 
1838 
1841 
1852 
1865 
1867 
1875 
1890 
1896 
1900 
1908 
1919 
1925 


Great Awakening. 

King’s Chapel Liturgy. 

Sherman’s One God in One Person Only. Henry Ware 
elected Hollis Professor at Harvard. 

“American Unitarianism” published. 

The Dedham Case. 

Channing’s Baltimore Sermon. 

American Unitarian Association formed, May 25. 

Emerson’s Divinity School Address. 

Parker’s South Boston Sermon. 

Western Unitarian Conference formed. 

National Conference of Unitarian Churches, 

Free Religious Association. 

Year Book Controversy. 

National Alliance. 

Young People’s Religious Union. 

International Congress of Free Christians. 

National Federation of Religious Liberals. 

Laymen’s League. 

General Conference merged with the American Unitarian 
Association. 













g e Met 4 7 ‘ + ; : i ar 
; | ». yp heh gaa 
k - ~ ; 77 . 
at aM (or cae 
baa oA f a’ Se itaucr. € bw eal se 
fh eli Sale ayy? : 
oY ‘ “ v UMS aT ip GA ube bl ' ? 
; ; eibib' > cee "a4 
: - ’ vs . 0 
J ; Rt 
t “ ‘a 
ni tet 







nus 
«aa 


at 


CONTENTS 


PREFACE . 


IMpoRTANT Dares IN UNITARIAN History . 


DIVISION I. CHRISTIANITY BEFORE 
UNITARIANISM 


Chapter I. Religion as a Heritage . : : 

Chapter II. The Religion of the New Testament : 

Chapter III. The Development of Christian Doctrine 
down to the Council of Nicwa, 325 a.p. 

Chapter IV. The Council of Nicea and the Develop- 
ment of the Doctrine of the ae 
to 381 A.D. 

Chapter V. The Completion of the Osthoder Theol- 
ogy, to 451 A.D. : . 


DIVISION II. SCATTERED PIONEERS OF 
UNITARIANISM IN EUROPE 
Chapter VI. The Protestant Reformation and the Be- 
ginnings of Modern Waker ccune 1517- 
1530 


Chapter VII. Antitrinitarianism among ae Barly jv 
baptists, 1517-1530 . ; 


Chapter VIII. Michael Servetus: stare Life, 1511- 


1532 ; 
Chapter IX. Antitrinitarianism in Nerinern eles i 
1517-1558 eit cat's ine 
Chapter X. Antitrinitarianism in the Gators » 1542- 
1579 eta stil 


Chapter XI. Servetus in Tteek: 1532- 1553 : 
Chapter XII. The Trial and Execution of Servetus at 
Geneva, 15538 A Ay AUS bed ete 

xi 


19 


27 


37 


43 


52 


65 


70 
79 


88 


xii 

Chapter XIII. 

Chapter XIV. 
DIVISION 

Chapter XV. 

Chapter XVI. 

Chapter XVII. 


Chapter XVIII. 


XIX, 
XX, 


Chapter 
Chapter 


DIVISION IV. 


Chapter XXI. 


Chapter XXII. 
Chapter 


Chapter 


Chapter 


Chapter 


DIVISION 
Chapter XXVITI. 


XXIII. 


XXIV; 


XKYV. 


AVI: 


CONTENTS 


Antitrinitarianism at Geneva after Ser- 
vetus, 1553-1566 


Antitrinitarian Tendencies at Ziirich and 


Basel, 15538-1572 111 
III. UNITARIANISM IN POLAND 
The Beginnings of Antitrinitarianism in 
Poland, down to 1565 . yes 
The Organization and Growth of the 
Antitrinitarian Churches in Poland, 
1565-1579 135 
Faustus Socinus and the Full Develo 
ment of Socinianism in Poland, 1579- 
1638 . PP AT i! so 
The Decline and Fall of Socihianigit® 
and Its Banishment from Poland, 
1638-1660 yee 
The Socinians in Exile 1660- 1803 . ASCO SD 
Socinianism in Holland, 1598-1750 . 195 


UNITARIANISM IN TRANSYLVANIA. 


Down to the Beginning of Unitarianism 
in Transylvania in 1564 PB 19, 
Francis David and the Rise of Unita- 
rianism in Transylvania, 1564-1569 . 220 
Unitarianism in Transylvania until the 
Death of Francis David, 1569-1579 
Unitarianism in Transylvania after 
David’s Death, 1579-1690: a Century 
of Calvinist Oppression ost ahaa 
Unitarianism in Transylvania under 
Austrian Rule, 1690-1867: a Century 
and a Quarter of Catholic Oppression 
The Unitarian Churches of Hungary in 
the Twentieth Century. pe 


V. UNITARIANISM IN ENGLAND 


The Pioneers of Unitarianism in Eng- 
land, to 1644 . . 285 


259 


Chapter 


Chapter 


Chapter 


Chapter 


Chapter 


Chapter 


DIVISION VI. 
XXXIV. 


Chapter 
Chapter 


Chapter 


Chapter 


Chapter XXXVIII. 


\ APPENDIX: 


Index 


XXVIII. 


OE DS 


XXX, 


XXXI. 


XXXIT. 


XX XITT. 


XXXV. 


XXXVI. 


XXXVIT. 


CONTENTS 
John Bidle and His Sas 
1644-1697 


Unitarianism sguale th in he fener 
of England: the Trinitarian Con- 
troversy, 1690-1750 


Unitarianism Spreads among the Dis- 
senting Churches: the Arian Move- 


ment, 1703-1750 
The Unitarian Revolt from the 
Church of England: Theophilus 


Lindsey Organized the First Uni- 
tarian Church, 1750-1808 


The Liberal Dissenting Churches be- 
come openly Unitarian under the 
Leadership of Die a Aaa 
1750-1804 


English Unitarianism in the Ne 
teenth Century . 


UNITARIANISM IN AMERICA 


The Beginnings of Unitarianism in 
America, 1750-1805 
The Unitarian Controversy in Amer- 
ica, 1805-1835 Rays 
American Unitarianism Trying to 
Find Itself: Internal Controversy 
and Development, 1835-1865 . 
American Unitarianism Organized 
and Expanding, 1865—-1925' 
The Meaning and Lesson of Unitar- 
ian History . Bata eons 


The Three Great Creeds of Early Christianity 


Xi 


PAGE 


weauo 


. 812 


. 328 


. 848 


357 


. 369 


Bi afer’) 


. 406 


- 428 


. 449 


. 467 


471 


» ATT 





















Mio tdi Rea nd Ma 
pcan ER tee uC 
ae : io coe, 3f | es ‘ ‘ ae oe f ox: apy p 
Shh) ue: s ‘ iy PY aS, ia S oes ae ‘i ii ee = m a 04 # - 
Be oo ae MERON ee 


ee A * 
2 Tein. Wey \ ; ay Raa 
a 


Hen 
. Seri 
‘ 











BAY a 
rest pay) Pkok ait , , ; 4 de ey rey 
i haan A, Lal tana ee rcs pene 
el ae is tetedek Mice (ket > , eH) Ane as 
“4 4 ai s 
wa , a 8 > ini « . ie bY Ee iN 


| SY Game a 
" fie) nA ‘ ¥ ; La 
: “agai YS i ge Par aliae hee i ae wit) ee aaa 


+ 


Seek Sn ce, sat 3 ats Pea if. rx sgh 4) 1a ae 











RN es iy) i cannes uence PKG aPC 
aN ed Sek a re as i kb ey it 
‘ me ie eats. ia MAL e Sat 2) es 
Ayn . OPT at 
ORY I Reh ie ; 
SSS Mere, ¥ ' 
hae i" % Basi Sd 
; (iVe ty hie ee. ators ; Aen le. pee a 
RE MM ee ceil aunatts hier 
4 : a > wy e : es a de, & i 5 fod net ve af a i e 
Panto Mel ta Goi 
. / ; Ria Fis sta pds Y in Pity lee) ‘are WAS sae e 
AS ites! te ; rie. a i oe hed i WW igea’ 
ane ck: Oe ae Sti wees 
& Py Je. - »' mS it ny 
" - ny “Litas eC eh a “EN Me 


, ie ] ea? 4 ales . 3 =or EP 5 
, ; bas eye t Pe perth bP eke! Dab , 





ah oe 
ry SERY, 7 > ean hay reel Est *y A maT 3 
dew ae | ; Ma at = Dee, + 24 T feat v2 a ae é an 
is f 1 ee - aS : e 4 hans lan at ot 4 : 5 uh Wy By . z a 
a fae Pt, ahs a. : ji ‘ahi Sgt it in tied i ai? 1 
a vine F i 5 i ¥ L ng r f a ‘VE ae Mae our oka 
bb CODOTE LIA Rey ete Reb eae. aay ay ; 
es f rc Fr: 4 AK v ne aed, A ie : oh neat ae 
AEE AW 4. Sa MCN Goa r meae © fee he Dirt a wee 
my ivi M f pid iy (ieee STE e) ig ora iY Wy: Sate Me if é ist 
> ‘dd a ee ee Pe amie SA : : 
cae erat Ta ae sys NR Soni. 
‘ “ 4 rae a ‘ Re. . a OD ¥ 





aor ie brit is 










F 
f 
(tn .4 
, 
7 Hay 
; uy 
Cos | 
+ aw Lape chars 
oe if es " 
wes A 






y ¥ weg 
oe 


the 





DIVISION I 


CHRISTIANITY BEFORE 
UNITARIANISM 


2 


‘ 


Sree ae 


te 


oe a a 


ie OER EOE anh ‘a 
ved ADL PAAR eam 


te ate) uf sia 
“PAS! j 





OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


CHAPTER I 
RELIGION AS A HERITAGE 


Our religious faith, as the title of this book implies, is a 
heritage. We did not form it independently for ourselves. 
Many of us did not even choose it, but instead received it as 
a precious legacy, bequeathed to us by those who have cher- 
ished it before us. Of course it ought to be much more than 
merely this. If it is to amount to anything vital, it should 
include at least these three elements: a profound conviction 
on some of the greatest subjects of thought, a sacred per- 
sonal experience hallowing the deepest part of our lives, and 
above all a way of living as children of God. Yet none of 
even these things wholly originated with ourselves; for to no 
small extent our convictions were implanted in us, our expe- 
riences were cultivated within us, and our way of life was 
trained into us, by others. The religion of some people, in- 
deed, seems to be an inheritance and little else, a tradition 
handed down to them by others, rather than a matter of 
personal conviction, experience, or principle; although even 
such a religion may yet make a very important difference in 
their lives. 

Inasmuch, then, as our religion has to a very considerable 
degree come down to us from the past, we must, if we would 
appreciate anything like its full meaning, know its past his- 


4 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


tory. We shall appreciate more deeply the value of our 
religious faith if we once come to realize how much it has 
cost others to win what they have freely bequeathed to us: 
the thinkers who have labored over its problems, the apostles 
who have spent their lives in spreading the knowledge of it 
among men, the saints who have made its history sacred, the 
confessors who have endured reproach and loss, persecution 
and exile for it, and the noble army of martyrs who have 
suffered death rather than be untrue to it. The meaning of 
the religious faith we hold, and the price it has cost to se- 
cure it to us: these are the two points most strongly sug- 
gested by the title, “Our Unitarian Heritage,” and it is 
these that we shall try to keep constantly in view as we 
follow the course of its history. 

We are familiar enough with this point of view in connec- 
tion with our national life. As mere citizens we might in 
any case have been fairly satisfied with our native land, 
even though we had done nothing to make it what it is, but 
had simply entered into it as an inheritance from our fore- 
fathers. But when we read the history of our country, 
when we see how our fathers had to toil to subdue the wilder- 
ness, how they fought and bled to make it free, strove to de- 
velop its institutions, and struggled to defend it against its 
enemies, that they might leave it free and strong to their 
children—it is only then that we begin to appreciate what 
our country really means to us, to realize what its free in- 
stitutions cost, to love it with patriotic love, and to feel 
that if need be we too would gladly suffer and die for it; 
and that in any event we will do all in our power to keep it 
forever a land of freedom and justice to all. 

It is quite the same with regard to the inheritance we 
have received in our religious faith, We may have been 
simply born into it, and may always have taken it for 


RELIGION AS A HERITAGE 5 


granted. We may never have had to struggle to win re- 
ligious freedom, nor to sacrifice or suffer to maintain it. 
But when we have once read its history, and have seen how 
in earlier generations many men in many lands had to strug- 
gle, to sacrifice, to suffer, and in not a few cases even to 
die, before we could inherit our free faith, and how ear- 
nestly even in happier times and at smaller cost devoted men 
have labored to make religious faith purer, more reasonable, 
and more inspiring with each new age; then we can not fail 
to appreciate as never before the faith which we hold, and 
we shall our own selves wish to be loyal to it, and to prove 
ourselves worthy of the freedom it gives us. 

For this is to be the story of a progresstve movement 
toward perfect freedom of thought and speech im religion, 
a freedom which has been won only in the face of odds some- 
times overwhelming, and at a cost that no one, thank God, is 
in our time called upon to pay. It is a history rich in its 
saints and sages, its heroes and martyrs, and it is full of 
deeds of bravery that kindle the blood. The roots of this 
religious faith go back, of course, to earliest Christian 
times ; and the glory and the inspirations of fifteen centuries 
of the history of the undivided Christian Church belong to 
it in common with all Christendom. But the story of this 
particular religious movement begins scarcely four hundred 
years ago, early in the period of the Protestant Refor- 
mation. 

In tracing the story of the development of our faith dur- 
ing these four centuries, it will not be enough for us merely 
to get hold of the facts of a past history. Our study of 
these will be to little purpose if we do not at the same time 
get a proper sense of what they mean for us in our own 
time, and of the obligation they lay upon us as possessors 
of a heritage that is precious and costly. As an early 


6 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Christian writer wrote of a similar situation,’ we ought to 
realize that, although these heroes of our faith bore a good 
witness in their day, God has also placed upon us a sacred 
duty to continue and complete their work, since without us 
they will not be made perfect. 


1 Hebrews 11: 39, 40. 


CHAPTER II 
THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


The common notion of Unitarianism is that it is a system 
of doctrine centering about belief in one God in one person , 
(as contrasted with the Trinitarian belief in one God in— 
three persons), and the closely related belief in the true hu- 
manity of Jesus (as contrasted with the Trinitarian belief 
in his deity, or supreme divinity). Unitarians who best 
understand their movement, however, attach much less im- 
portance to-day to these or any other particular doctrines 
than to certain fundamental principles of religion, center- 
ing around freedom and reason. In fact, as a matter of 
history, although it was the Unitarian doctrines that were 
first developed, and although these have been made espe- 
cially prominent through controversy, and have been the 
occasion of long continued persecution, yet almost from the 
first Unitarians laid strong emphasis upon the importance 
of religious freedom, and asserted the rights of reason in 
religion; and the further the movement has proceeded, the 
more the emphasis has been shifted from its doctrines to its 
underlying principles. While we shall need, therefore, 
throughout the whole of our study, to keep in view the doc- 
trines associated with this movement, we should remember 
that this is in its most important aspect a progressive move- 
ment toward a fuller use of reason, and a more perfect en- 
joyment of liberty in religion. 


The history of modern Unitarianism begins, as we have 
7 


8 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


said, early in the period of the Protestant Reformation. 
That is to say, we can not trace any continuous develop- 
ment of Unitarian thought back of that time. Yet it has 
often been maintained that Unitarianism is simply a re- 
turn from corrupted doctrines of orthodox Christianity to 
the pure religion of the New Testament. We shall so fre- 
quently see this claim asserted in the course of our history 
that we must at the outset inquire how far it is justified. 
Since Unitarianism from the sixteenth century on has also 
been largely characterized by its protests against the doc- 
trines known as orthodox, we must also get our start toward 
an understanding of the movement by trying to discover 
what those doctrines were which the fathers of our faith 
felt obliged, even at the risk of their lives, to disbelieve and 
oppose, and how and why they came to grow up out of the 
simple religion of Jesus and his first disciples. Understand- 
ing these things, we shall be able at the same time to judge 
them more fairly. For it is possible to trace every stage of 
the process by which, in the course of five or six centuries or 
less, the simple religion of the parables and the sermon on 
the mount was gradually transformed into the elaborate 
doctrines of the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds. This 
we shall now proceed briefly to do. 

To learn, then, what Jesus and his earliest disciples 
taught, we have to turn to the first three Gospels. These 
were written probably between 70 and about 100 a. p., hence 
from one to two generations after the death of Jesus. 
They therefore date from a time when the primitive belief 
had already begun to undergo change, and when that long 
process had commenced which we are about to trace, and 
which ended in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity 
of Christ. Yet these Gospels also show many traces of the 
earlier and simpler belief, as it existed in the very time 


RELIGION OF. THE NEW TESTAMENT 9 


of Jesus; and it is these traces that we shall first notice. 

To begin with, there is in these three Gospels not the re- 
motest suggestion of the doctrine of the Trinity. Such a 
doctrine would have seemed to Jesus or any other Jew of 
his age as little short of blasphemy; for during long cen- 
turies of their national humiliation no other conviction had 
been so deeply burned into the consciousness of the Jewish 
people as their belief in the absolute and unqualified oneness 
of God. In fact, down to this very day, nothing else has 
proved such an impassable barrier to the reception of Chris- 
tianity by the Jews, as has the doctrine of the Trinity, which 
has seemed to them to undermine the very cornerstone of 
their religion.” In these Gospels we find Jesus simply re- 
garded as the Messiah—a man, sent of God for a high pur- 
pose, endowed with superior powers, yet dependent upon 
God, acknowledging himself not so good as God, and limited 
in knowledge, authority, and power.* This primitive belief 
long survived among a little sect of Jewish Christians known 
as Ebionites. They early became separated from the rest 
of the Christian Church and lived an isolated life east of 
the Jordan, and as late as the fifth century they retained 
their original belief in the unity of God, and in the pure 
humanity and the natural birth of Jesus. 

When we turn to the writings of Paul, a short generation 
after Jesus, we find this simple, natural view of Jesus al- 
ready becoming transformed. In the epistles bearing Paul’s 
name (some of them doubtless written after his time, though 


1The text which might to some seem most clearly to imply this 
doctrine (Matthew 28:19), apart from the strong suspicion of its late 
origin, does not imply that each of the three is God, still less that the 
three are one. 

2The same obstacle has effectually prevented any large spread of 
Christianity among Mohammedans. 

3 See Mark 14:36; 15:34; 10:18; 13:32; 10:40; 6:5, 


10 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


more or less resembling his thought), and written from 53 
to 64 a. p. or later, the figure of Jesus, receding into the dis- 
tance of the past as Paul and his fellow-Christians rever- 
ently contemplate it, has grown less distinct, but at the same 
time grander. He is still sometimes referred to as a man, 
but more often as Lord; he is spoken of as sent from heaven, 
where he existed with God before the creation of the world; 
God is said to have created the world through his agency; 
he is regarded as in a sense divine, though still as subor- 
dinate to God.? 

In the fourth Gospel, ascribed to the apostle John, but 
now believed to have been written by a later Christian, per- 
haps about 125 a.p., we find a yet more exalted view of 
Jesus. He is here identified with the Word, or Logos; and 
since this term plays so large a part in the following de- 
velopment of belief about Jesus, we must pause here to ex- 
plain it. The conception is supposed to have grown up 
somewhat as follows: philosophers in the first century were 
accustomed to think of God as being, in his perfect wisdom 
and holiness, so far superior to this imperfect and sinful 
world that he could not be supposed himself to have had any- 
thing directly to do with the creation or with men. But 
Philo, a Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, discovered in the 
Old Testament certain passages seeming to refer to a sort 
of personified Wisdom, or Word, or Logos, through which 
as an intermediate being God had created the world and com- 
municated with man.” This Logos thus seemed to him to 
bridge the great gulf otherwise existing between God and 
his world. At the same time there was also in the Greek 

tSee Romans 5:15; I Corinthians 15:21, 27, 45, 47; 12:8; 8:6; II 
Corinthians 4:5; 5:21; 12:8, 9; Colossians 1:15-17, 19; 2:9; Philip- 
pians 2:6, 7. 


2K. g., Psalm 33:6; 147:15; Isaiah 55:11; Jeremiah 23:29; Proverbs 
8,49: 


RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 11 


philosophy of the period a belief that a divine Logos, or 
Reason,! was manifested in the universe as a kind of world- 
soul. These two views, then, the one Jewish and the other 
Greek, became more or less blended in Jewish and Greek 
thought from the end of the first century, and this Logos 
idea became widely accepted by both Jews and Greeks as one 
of the staple elements in their religious teaching, because 
it solved for them what they felt to be a critical religious 
problem—how sinful man might come into harmony with the 
perfect God. 

Now the great purpose of the author of the fourth Gospel 
was to recommend the Christian religion to those who held 
this Logos view, by showing them that the Logos was none 
other than Jesus himself, the founder of that religion, who 
had been with God in the beginning, had been his agent in 
the creation of the world, and had at length taken the form 
of a human being, thus becoming one through whom the holy 
God and sinful men might be brought together. The Logos 
doctrine in this Gospel was the highest point reached in 
the development of the New Testament teaching about Je- 
sus; but although it sometimes almost seems to make Jesus 
one with God, in other passages it makes it clear neverthe- 
less that he was less than God, and derived his being, and 
all his power and authority, from him.” It was directly 
from this Logos doctrine, however, that the development 
followed which in the fourth century ended in the fully de- 
veloped doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. 
That further progress of Christian thought we are now 
ready to follow. 

1The Greek word Logos meant both word, and reason. 


2See John 1:1-14; 14:6, 9, 11; 8:23, 58; 10:30. Also 14:28; 3:35; 
5:19, 22, 26, 30; 7:16; 8:28; 17:21. 


CHAPTER ITI 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 
DOWN TO THE COUNCIL OF NICAA, 
325 A. D. 


In the last chapter we traced the development of the New 
Testament teaching about Jesus, and saw that there was a 
steady progress of thought which began by regarding Je- 
sus as truly human, simply a man, and ended by regarding 
him as the Logos, in some sense divine, and little less than 
God; though there was as yet no doctrine of the Trinity, 
and no belief in the complete deity of Christ. But the 
Logos doctrine of the fourth Gospel furnished the germ out 
of which within the next two or three centuries those doc- 
trines were to develop. We must now follow the steps which 
this further development took. 

After all the immediate disciples of Jesus had passed 
away, and the Apostolic Age had come to an end with the 
close of the first century, there followed for something more 
than a hundred years what is known as the Age of the Apol- 
ogists, during which Christians had to defend their new re- 
ligion against the attacks of Jews or of Pagans, and were 
trying to prove it superior to the older religions. The writ- 
ers who made this defense are known as the Apologists. 
Some of their writings have come down to us, and form the 
earliest Christian literature after the New ‘Testament. 
They themselves were the earliest Christian theologians, try- 


ing to state their religious beliefs in systematic form; and 
12 


DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 13 


their writings therefore serve to show us how Christian doc- 
trines were taking shape. The problem they were all ear- 
nestly trying to solve, in order to state the philosophy of 
Christianity in such a way that educated Greeks might ac- 
cept it, was this: How was the Logos (now fully accepted 
as a fixed item in Christian thought) related to the infinite 
and eternal God on the one hand, and to the man Jesus of 
Nazareth on the other? They could not hope to see Chris- 
tianity make much progress in the Greek world until this 
problem was satisfactorily solved. Yet it was a difficult 
problem, for the nearer they made him to God, the more 
unreal his human life seemed to be; while the more fully they 
recognized his humanity, the farther he seemed to be from 
God. It is these Apologists that take the next steps leading 
from the simpler teaching of the New Testament, far toward 
the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, as we shall now see by 
looking briefly at what four of the most prominent of them 
wrote. 

Justin Martyr had been a Greek philosopher before his 
conversion to Christianity. As a Christian he wrote at 
Rome, some time after the year 140, two Apologies and 
other writings in defense of Christianity. In these he 
teaches that the divine Reason, or Logos, was begotten by 
God, as his first-born, before the creation of the world. 
Through him God created the world. He was a distinct 
person from God, and inferior to him, yet he might be wor- 
shiped as a divine being. He became a man upon earth in 
the person of Jesus. 

Ireneus, who had been born in Asia Minor, went as mis- 
sionary to southern Gaul, and there in 178 he became 
Bishop of Lyons. He wrote a book against heresies, in 
which he taught that the Logos existed before the creation 
of the world, and was God’s first-born Son. The Logos was 


4 | OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


thus truly divine, although distinct from God and inferior to 
him; and he became a man in Jesus, and suffered as a man, 
in order to bring mankind nearer to God. 

Clement of Alexandria was born in the Greek religion, but 
after his conversion to Christianity he became the most emi- 
nent Christian philosopher of his time, and had great influ- 
ence on the thought of the Eastern Church. In works writ- 
ten after 190 he teaches that the Logos was in the begin- 
ning with God, and was somehow God, and hence deserved 
to be worshiped; and yet he was below the Father in rank. 
In Jesus he became a man, that we might learn from him 
how a man may become God. Clement also took a further 
step toward the doctrine of the Trinity, when he spoke of 
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a “holy triad.” 

Tertullian was born at Carthage about 150, and was a 
pagan in religion until middle life; but after his conversion 
to Christianity he became as influential in the thought of 
the Western Church as Clement was in the Eastern. In his 
writings he teaches that the Son (or Logos) existed before 
creation, and was of one substance with God, though dis- 
tinct from him and subordinate to him. He was born upon 
earth as Jesus; and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mys- 
teriously united into a trintty—a term which Tertullian was 
the first to introduce. 

These four examples are enough to show what was going 
on in Christian thought during the century after the fourth 
Gospel appeared. There was a growing tendency, while 
still insisting that Christ was less than God, to regard him 
more and more as divine. Yet in this tendency there were 
two dangers. As theologians speculated upon the Logos, 
they were more and more losing sight of the human charac- 
ter of Jesus, and there was a fear lest Christianity should 
presently find itself worshiping two divine beings instead of 


DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE § 15 


one God. This latter danger was keenly felt by those who 
regarded the religion of the Roman Empire, in which it was 
customary to deify and worship the Emperors. So that in 
opposition to the beliefs we have above noticed as growing 
up, a contrary tendency also asserted itself, and spread 
widely, under the name of Monarchianism. 'The Monarch- 
lans were strict monotheists. They objected that if Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit were all divine, then Christianity had 
three Gods; and they insisted instead that God was one 
person as well as one being. 

There were two persons closely associated with this op- 
posing view whose names deserve to be mentioned and re- 
membered in a history of Unitarianism. One was Paul of 
Samosata. He became in 260 Bishop of Antioch, the most 
important see in the Eastern Church. He taught that 
though Jesus was originally a man like other men, he gradu- 
ally became divine, and finally became completely united 
with God. He was accused of heresy by theological and ! 
political enemies, and after three trials was at length de- 
posed from his office and excommunicated from the Church, 
about 268. Various Unitarians in later times held views 
more or less resembling his, and they were therefore some- 
times called Samosatenians or Paulianists. 

More famous yet, though of his life little is now known, 
was Sabellius, whose teaching proved very attractive to 
large numbers. He sought to preserve the unity of God, 
and at the same time to make the mystery of the Trinity 
more easy to comprehend, by teaching that the one God 
manifested himself in three different ways, as Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit. But this teaching seemed to his oppo- 
nents to make Christ unreal, a mere reflection of another 
being, and it was therefore condemned as a heresy, and Sabel- 
lius himself was excommunicated from the church at Alexan- 


16 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


dria, about 260. Sabellianism, however, did not become 
extinct, for it has often reappeared in Christian history down 
to this very day. Not only have Unitarians often held 
Sabellian views, and often been called Sabellians by the or- 
thodox, but professed Trinitarians have often given their 
explanation of the Trinity in Sabellian terms, and have thus 
really been heretical. 

The great popularity of these Monarchian views in the 
third century shows that the movement toward the doctrine 
of the Trinity did not go on without much opposition; and 
Tertullian complains of how in his time the majority of 
Christians, being ignorant (of philosophical speculations), 
still hold to the simple unity of God, and are mistrustful of 
the Trinity. 

After Monarchianism had been suppressed, various at- 
tempts were made to state the relation of Christ + to God in 
some way which should avoid Sabellianism on the one hand, 
and tritheism on the other. One ofthese attempts was em- 
bodied in the view known as Arianism; and this has had 
such important relations with Unitarianism, and it comes 
up so often in the course of Unitarian history, that it de- 
serves to be made as clear as possible. The bishop of Alex- 
andria, Alexander by name, about 318 tried to make the 
matter clearer by teaching that Christ had never had a be- 
ginning any more than God himself, that he had always 
been the Son of God, “eternally begotten” by him, and that 
he was of the same essential being or nature with the 
Father.” Now there was in Alexandria a certain presbyter 
(priest or minister) of one of the parish churches, Arius 


1The term Logos was now passing out of use, and was becoming re- 
placed by Christ, or the Son. 

2 The language of the creeds is, “of one substance with the Father”; 
but the word “substance” in this connection is misleading to the average 
reader. 


DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE 17 


by name, who felt bound to oppose this teaching. ‘Arius 
was a man well on in years, grave in manner, keen in argu- 
ment, extremely self-denying in his life, and highly respected 
in the city for his piety and his work among the lower 
classes. He urged that this teaching of Alexander was mere 
Sabellianism, and that it practically meant belief in two 
Gods. He held, on the contrary, that Christ was not equal 
to God, but inferior to him; that he did not exist with God 
from all eternity, but was created by him before the crea- 
tion of the world; that he was not of the same “substance” 
with the Father, but was created out of nothing. This was , 
Arianism: the belief that Christ, though a being far above | 
man, was yet less than God; that he was created before'the 
creation of the world; and that he was of a different nature 
from either God or man. It will be well to recall this defini- 
tion whenever Arianism is referred to in the course of the 
following history. 

Controversy over the question now became general, and 
lasted some three years. ‘The bishop at length commanded 
Arius to change his views; but Arius, as he wrote to a friend, 
said he would die a thousand deaths sooner than assent to 
opinions he did not believe. He was accordingly deposed 
from office along with several of his followers, was excom- 
municated from the Church by a council at Alexandria in 
321, and banished from the city “as an atheist.” He then 
travelled widely in Syria and Asia Minor, finding many to 
take his part, and some of these of great influence; and the 
whole East was soon aflame with the controversy. He even 
secured so much support that he was able to return to his 
work at Alexandria, where he had many followers, but this 
did not end the trouble. The fires of controversy were now 
beyond control; and not only bishops but even the common 
people were quarrelling throughout many of the eastern 


18 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


provinces to such an extent that the Emperor himself felt 
compelled to take notice. He sent his personal represen- 
tative to Alexandria to get the parties to compose their 
quarrels, but in vain. Nothing remained but to call a gen- 
eral council of the churches throughout the Empire, and 
submit the case to that for settlement. 

The council thus called to settle the questions in dispute 
in the Arian controversy was known as the Council of Ni- 
cea; and it was of very great importance because up to 
this time there had been nothing that might be called the 
authorized doctrine of the Church at large. During the 
three centuries since Christ, as we have seen, there had been 
in the Church a wide difference of belief about him. There 
had been a growing tendency, it is true, to give him an ever 
higher rank, and a teaching opposed to this tendency might 
here or there be condemned by some local council; but no 
standard of belief for the whole Church had as yet been 
adopted. ‘This was first done at the Council of Nicwa in 
325. How this council came about, and what result it had 
on the doctrines of the Christian Church, we shall see in 
the next chapter. 


CHAPTER IV 


THE COUNCIL OF NICHA AND THE DEVELOP- 
MENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 
TO 381 A. D. 


When Constantine, who had lately abandoned paganism 
for Christianity, became in 323 head of the whole Roman 
Empire, as its first Christian Emperor, he found that the 
Christians, on whom he relied for support against his pagan 
enemies, were divided against themselves throughout the 
whole East. In his newly founded capital of Constantino- 
ple their quarrels were the butt of jokes in the very theaters. 
He at once perceived that if he were to maintain his power 
it was of supreme importance that the factions in the 
Church should be brought into harmony with one another. 
His first attempts to this end failed, as we saw at the end 
of the previous chapter. He therefore determined to call 
together the bishops from all parts of the Empire, that they 
might agree as to what should be received as the true Chris- 
tian belief. This gathering was the first General (or Ecu- 
menical) Council, and it met in 325 at Nicea, a small city 
in northwestern Asia Minor, some forty-five miles southeast 
of Constantinople. 

Bishops were summoned by imperial command from every 
part of the Empire, and they were to travel if need be at the 
Emperor’s expense, accompanied by two presbyters and 
three servants each, and to be his guests. They came with 


all speed from the remotest parts, until there were over 
19 


20 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


three hundred bishops present, and a total company of some 
two thousand. The Emperor himself opened the Council 
with great pomp, and presided in person over its sessions, 
which lasted through six weeks. Yet though they were to 
discuss important matters of Christian belief, there was lit- 
tle calm reasoning over the points at issue, and a Christian 
spirit of patient forbearance was conspicuously absent. 
Feeling ran so high that the most abusive language was 
often used in debate, and sometimes, it is said, even physical 
violence was used by the members against one another. 

The chief purpose of the Council was to settle the bitter 
controversy as to the true doctrine about Christ, and on 
this subject there were three distinct views held. A small 
minority were strict followers of Arius, holding that Christ 
was in his essential being or nature (“substance”) different 
from God. This party was led in the discussions by Arius 
himself, who though not a bishop had been especially com- 
manded by the Emperor to appear at the Council. A sec- 
ond party, forming a larger minority, was composed of the 
opponents of Arius; and these held that Christ was of the 
same essential being with God. The recognized leader of 
these was not their aged Bishop Alexander, but a young 
deacon in his train, barely twenty-five, very small of stature, 
far from handsome in appearance, but of keen intellect and 
fiery temper, violent in argument, passionately devoted to 
his convictions, and hence narrow and intolerant in spirit.? 
This was Athanasius, whose very name was to become a syn- 
onym for unyielding orthodoxy. But the great majority 
were of a third party, occupying an intermediate position, 


1 He called the Arians by such names as “devils, antichrists, maniacs, 
Jews, polytheists, atheists, dogs, wolves, lions, hares, chameleons, hydras, 
eels, cuttlefish, gnats, beetles, and leeches,” and no doubt the Arians 
repaid him measure for measure. 


THE COUNCIL OF NICHA 21 


and holding that Christ was of an essential being similar to 
God. The leader of this middle party, who came to be 
known as Semi-Arians, was Eusebius of Caesarea, who stood 
high in influence with the Emperor, and was understood to 
represent his views. 

After some discussion, the Arians, confident of victory, 
proposed a creed for adoption; but this was at once torn in 
pieces by an angry mob of their opponents, and from that 
time on the strictly Arian view received little attention. 
Eusebius then brought forth a creed representing the views 
of the middle party, approved by the Emperor, and carefully 
avoiding terms offensive to either the Arians or their oppo- 
nents. The Arians were willing to accept it, but this very 
fact made the Athanasians suspicious, and they absolutely 
refused to make any concession or compromise. The main 
point was now discussed between the Semi-Arians and the 
Athanasians, as to whether Christ’s nature was similar to 
God’s, or the same as God’s; and as it narrowed down prac- 
tically to a controversy over the two corresponding Greek 
words, homoi- and homo-, it has been cynically said that the 
whole Christian Church for half a century, beginning with 
this Council, fought and was distracted over the smallest let- 
ter in the alphabet. 

The Emperor, seeing how unyielding the Athanasian 
party was, realized that no settlement could be reached on 
middle ground; so apparently thinking peace and harmony 
in his Empire of greater importance than this doctrine or 
that, he threw his weight at length on the side of the Atha- 
nasians. The latter then presented a creed distinctly op- 
posed to Arian views; the majority soon yielded, though not 
without some reluctance, to what was pressed as the Em- 
peror’s wish; and nearly all of them signed the creed. The 
Arians at first stood out, but at last all gave in save two; 


22 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


and these were sent with Arius into exile. Arius’s books 
were condemned to be burnt, possession of them was made 
a capital crime, and his followers were declared to be en- 
emies of Christianity. This was the first instance in Chris- 
tian history of subscription being required to a creed, and 
the first of many tragic instances of the civil government 
punishing heretics for not accepting the belief of the 
majority.’ 

The creed thus adopted is known as the Nicene Creed, the 
most important of the three great creeds * of early Chris- 
tianity, and the only one ever recognized by the whole Chris- 
tian Church. It did not establish the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity, but it took a long step in that direction by permanently 
settling the disputed question about the deity of Christ, and 
declaring that he was of the same “substance” with God. 
This was henceforth the orthodox doctrine, fortified not 
only by the vote of the Council as the voice of the whole 
Church, but also by imperial authority as virtually the law 
of the Empire. It remains the orthodox doctrine through- 
out all Christendom to this day; but it is instructive to note 
how it became so—by a majority vote of persons who really 
preferred another view, but under strong pressure from the 
Emperor sanctioned this one for the sake of peace and har- 
mony, and to escape the heavy hand of his displeasure.* 
The Creed might of course be true for all that; but had the 
real convictions of the majority been expressed, the ortho- 
dox belief might have been not what it now is, but Arianism, 
and the one sent into exile, whose books were ordered burnt, 


1 Hitherto heresy had been punished only by excommunication from 
the Church, but had not been made the concern of the State. Later on 
it was punished by death, as we shall see all too often. 

2See Appendix, page 471. 

3The alternative was to be deposed from office, and banished, as 
Arius was. 


THE COUNCIL OF NICAA 23 


and whose followers were declared enemies of Christianity, 
might have been not Arius, but Athanasius. 

The Council dispersed, and the bishops went their ways; 
but the great question they had met to decide was settled 
only in outward appearance. Despite their having signed 
the Creed to please the Emperor, many of them were “of the 
same opinion still.” Apparently defeated at Nicwea, Arian- 
ism, or something like it, was still popular in most of the 
churches of the East, and was actively promoted by many 
persons of influence. The Emperor himself began to feel 
the force of this influence, and to waver. Persuaded by his 
Arian sister and Eusebius, he recalled Arius from exile in 
335 and had him acquitted of heresy ; and Arius was on the 
point of being solemnly reinstated in the Church at Con- 
stantinople in the following year, when he suddenly died. 

Meantime Athanasius who, young as he was, had been 
chosen Bishop of Alexandria at Alexander’s death in 328, 
had been carrying things with such a high hand as to rouse 
the bitterest opposition; so that he himself was banished in 
336 as a disturber of the peace of the Church, and out of 
the forty-six stormy years of his office he spent twenty in 
exile, being successively banished and recalled no fewer than 
five times. For the whole question of doctrine was now 
opened again for discussion. One local council after an- 
other met in different parts of the Empire; creed after creed 
was put forth by one party or the other. After the death 
of Constantine in 337, political considerations came into the 
question, and the theology of the churches but reflected the 
opinions of the Emperor or the court. During most of 
the time for forty years Arian emperors were on the throne 
in the East, and Arians persecuted as intolerantly as ever 
their opponents had done. The West remained steadily or- 
thodox; but in the East a modified form of Arianism became 


24 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


all but universal under Constantius, Emperor from 337 to 
361, and at length he compelled councils in the West vir- 
tually to accept that, just as Constantine had forced the 
Athanasian view upon the Council of Nicewa. Even two of 
the Popes of Rome were forced for a time to give it a nom- | 
inal adherence (though with little effect upon the Western 
Church) ; and though the Nicene Creed was never abolished 
by a General Council, Arianism was for some time the offi- 
cially supported religion of the whole Empire. 

It was this very completeness of its victory that brought 
Arianism to its downfall, for the Arians fell to quarreling 
among themselves. Under the fanatical Arian Emperor 
Valens (3864-8378) the intolerance of the extreme Arians 
drove the Semi-Arians to side with the orthodox; and when 
the Emperor Theodosius came to the throne, having been 
brought up in the orthodox faith, he determmed to put an 
end to these controversies. Upon his baptism in 380 he is- 
sued an edict that all nations in the Empire should adhere 
to the Catholic (that is, the orthodox) religion, believing 
in the Trinity as an equal deity of Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit. All others he branded as heretics, and threatened 
them with severe punishment. He expelled the Arians from 
Constantinople, deprived them of their churches, and for- 
bade them to hold public worship. 

The following year, to give his action the sanction of 
church law, Theodosius called the second General Council, 
at Constantinople.t At this Council a new creed. was 
brought forth which completed the statement of the doc- 


1'This was not in fact a General Council, but only an Eastern one, 
and it did not in fact adopt the Creed referred to. But by about 530 
both the Eastern and the Western Church had come to consider this a 
General Council, and to regard this Creed as its production, to be used 
henceforth (under the name of the Nicene Creed) in place of that 
adopted at Nicea. 


THE COUNCIL OF NICZA 25 


trine of the Trinity, by adding an article about the Holy 
Spirit. This subject had been barely mentioned in the 
Nicene Creed, but it had now for some time been much dis- 
cussed, and had come to assume cardinal importance. In 
the new form of the Creed, therefore, the deity of the Holy 
Spirit was adopted (not without considerable opposition) 
as a part of the orthodox doctrine of one God in three per- 
sons; and thus the doctrine of the Trinity came to be re- 
ceived as the central doctrine of orthodox Christian belief. 
It was given further definition in the remarkable document 
known as the Athanasian Creed.* 

Thus Arianism was finally outlawed in the Roman Em- 
pire. Its downfall was rapid. It was suppressed in the 
West in 388, and thenceforth survived only among the bar- 
barian nations. For the Goths, the Vandals, the Lombards, 
and the Burgundians had originally been converted to Arian 
Christianity, and it did not become extinct among them un- 
til late in the sixth century. Individuals here and there 
may still have held Arian views, but as an organized move- 
ment it was no more. Unitarians in modern times have | 


often been called Arians, and have sometimes held Arian — 


views; but they have had no historical connection with the | 
Arians of the fourth century. Unitarians, too, have often 
felt a sentimental sympathy with these earlier heretics, if 
only because they were opposed to the orthodox doctrine of 
the Trinity. Yet if we were compelled to choose between 
the two to-day, the doctrine of Athanasius should be less ob- 
jectionable than that of Arius. The latter left too wide a 
gulf between God and man, and its Christ, being neither 
God nor man, did nothing to bring the two together. The 
needs of religion were better served by the view of Athana- 
sius, and it was well for Christianity that that prevailed. 


1See Appendix, page 473. 


26 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


But whether either doctrine is adapted to our day, when we 
do not begin as men then did by taking it for granted that 
an immense chasm separates the Father in heaven from his 
children on earth—that is another question, though the dis- 
cussion of it does not properly belong in a history. 

The whole controversy was really one between speculative 
theologians. ‘The great mass of the people can have had 
no real understanding of it. They might prefer the doc- 
trine of Athanasius because it seemed to give more honor 
to Christ than did that of Arius, but the subtle distinctions 
of the creeds they did not comprehend. The unfortunate 
result was, and long remained, that Christian doctrines came 
more and more to be regarded by the people at large as 
mysteries, not to be understood, nor even inquired into, but 
simply to be taken on faith, and on the authority of the 
Church. Men were not supposed to reason about religion. 
It was this condition of things that in the sixteenth century, - 
when men’s minds were becoming emancipated, led to the rise 
of Unitarianism with its insistent demand for freedom of 
thought and the use of reason, in religion. There were, 
however, yet other questions to be settled before the system 
of orthodox beliefs should be quite complete; and in order to 
understand the story that is to follow, we shall have in an- 
other chapter to glance also at those. 


CHAPTER V 


THE COMPLETION OF THE ORTHODOX 
THEOLOGY, TO 451 A. D. 


The last chapter showed how the Arian controversy led 
to two main results. It established the doctrine of the 
deity of Christ at the Council of Nicea, and that of the 
Trinity at Constantinople. It had lasted for over sixty 
years, and it might well have been hoped that the Church 
would now have peace. But not so. The accepted Creed 
left open more questions than it had settled; so that almost 
immediately a new controversy broke out, which lasted for 
seventy years more, and not only was thus longer, but also 
was far more violent, than the previous one. Discussion 
which in the former period had begun with Christ and ended 
with God now swung back to Christ again. The new ques- 
tion was as to the relation of the divine and the human na- 
tures in him. No authority had yet settled this question, 
and no one had thought out the answer to it. But every 
one who wished might guess at it, and it offered an endless 
field for speculation until some statement should be found 
which could be generally agreed to. There is no telling how 
long it might have lasted, had there not been such insti- 
tutions as General Councils, to decide what opinions must 
be held as Christian truth, and that whoever holds otherwise 
is no Christian, but must be put out of the Church, and 
be punished by the State as his case deserves. 


The question disputed about was this: It had always 
27 


28 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


been taken for granted that Christ had lived upon earth as 
a human being, and hence had a human nature; and now the 
Nicene Creed made it necessary also to believe that he was 
a divine being, and hence had a divine nature. But how 
could both these apparently contradictory statements be 
true of one person? Hence the discussion went from one 
extreme to its opposite, for no middle view seemed pos- 
sible. 

It will be enough for our purpose if we follow simply the 
brief outlines of the long story. First came Apollinaris, 
Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, who was teaching about the 
time of the Council of Constantinople that Christ’s two na- 
tures were so much alike as not to be distinguishable: his 
divine nature was so human, and his human nature was so 
divine, that there was scarcely any difference between them. 
But the result of this view was that he did not seem to have 
been really a human being at all. Apollinaris himself at 
length withdrew from the Church, and so escaped trial and 
punishment for heresy, but his doctrine was condemned by 
various councils. 

Some of his followers, continuing his doctrine, drew the 
conclusion that since Christ was so wholly divine, Mary 
might be called the Mother of God, and this view was widely 
accepted. Others thought this to be absurd blasphemy; 
and in opposition to it Nestorius, who was Metropolitan 
(chief bishop) of Constantinople from 428, taught that the 
two natures in Christ were perfectly distinct, so that Mary 
was mother only of the human nature in Christ. The peo- 
ple fancied he was thus denying the Christ they worshiped, 
and insulted him on the street ; while Cyril, Patriarch (chief 
bishop) of Alexandria, going to the opposite extreme, 
taught that in Christ the two natures were completely 


ORTHODOX THEOLOGY TO 451 A. D. 29 


united; and, wishing for personal reasons to humiliate Nes- 
torius, he used his influence to get the third General Council 
called, at Ephesus, 431. The bishops on both sides came 
to it armed as if for battle, and accompanied by a mob of 
followers; the meetings were turbulent and feeling ran high; 
but the purpose of the Council was realized, and Christ was 
declared a little later to be perfect God and perfect man, 
having two natures united with each other. The teaching 
of Nestorius was condemned, and he himself was sent into 
exile, where a few years later he died miserably in some re- 
mote part of Egypt. His doctrine nevertheless spread 
widely in the far East, and a sect of Nestorians still exists 
among Christians of Armenia and India. 

Next came Eutyches, an aged archimandrite (chief ab- 
bot) of Constantinople, who, starting with this new ortho- 
dox doctrine that in Christ there was a union of two na- 
tures, carried it out further by teaching that in this union 
the human nature was wholly absorbed into the divine; so 
that he had no human body, but only a divine one; whence 
it must follow that it was God himself that was born in 
Bethlehem, suffered, and died on the cross. This extraor- 
dinary doctrine, and its teacher, were at once attacked with 
great violence at Constantinople ; and Eutyches was deposed 
and his doctrine condemned at a local council. But he had 
powerful friends at court, so that the next year a fourth 
General Council was called in his behalf at Ephesus, 449; 
where, under the threats and coercion of the Emperor, his 
doctrine was actually approved as orthodox, and even Pope 
Leo of Rome, who had opposed him, was excommunicated 
for doing so. What manner of Council this was, however, 
and how much its opinion on a point of Christian doctrine 
was worth, may be judged from the fact that in the process 


30 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


of the discussion one of the bishops is said to have been 
beaten and kicked so that he died, and that it has ever since 
been known as “the Robber Council.” 

A reaction now came. A new Emperor soon afterwards 
came to the throne, and in his first year he called a fifth 
General Council, at Chalcedon, across the Bosporus from 
Constantinople, 451. This was the last of the great Coun- 
cils to settle the main lines of doctrine in the early Church, 
and it was the most important of all save Nicwa. It was 
attended by five or six hundred bishops, and as usual in 
these Councils it was full of tumult and disorder ; but, forced 
again by threats from the Emperor, it took three important 
actions. It annulled the actions of the Robber Council; it 
re-affirmed the Nicene Creed as revised at the Council of 
Constantinople; and it settled permanently the long-stand- 
ing controversy as to the two natures in Christ. The way 
in which it contrived to do this is highly interesting. Some 
had been saying, as we have seen, that Christ had two sep- 
arate natures, and others had been saying that he had but 
one nature. Now the Council of Chalcedon got rid of this 
contradiction by simply saying these two opposite things 
in one breath, only, in the second case it substituted for the 
word nature the word person.’ It declared that Christ had 
two distinct natures, and that these were both united in one 
person, thus making him a God-Man, both divine and hu- 
man. ‘The Emperor then embodied this doctrine in a law, 
and ordered all Eutychians banished from the Empire; and 
the Emperor Justinian a century later ratified and included 
in his Code of Roman Law the decrees of the four General 
Councils. This doctrine about the person of Christ, sup- 

1It could do this the more easily, since the two words in Greek 


originally meant practically the same thing, and had been used inter- 
changeably. 


ORTHODOX THEOLOGY TO 451 A. D. 31 


plementing that of the Trinity, was also included in the 
Athanasian Creed,’ and has been generally accepted by or- 
thodox Protestantism. 

Even now the question would not down. There were still 
those who insisted that Christ had but one nature, and were 
consequently named Monophysites. Their contentions dis- 
tracted the Eastern Church for over a century more, and 
they exist even to-day as a separate sect in Syria, Armenia, 
and Egypt; as do also the Monothelites, so called because 
they insisted, a century later, that though Christ had two 
natures he had but one will. But these heresies were both 
duly condemned, and the echoes of the controversy at last 
died away. 

Thus the orthodox theology as to God and Christ was 


completed. See now, in review, by what gradual steps its ~ 


doctrines grew up. 

1. The first three Gospels make Jesus the Messiah, but 
a man. 

2. Paul makes Jesus a man, but one raised up by God to 
a unique position in the universe. 

3. The Gospel of John makes Christ the Logos, subordi- 
nate to God, yet somehow sharing his divinity. 

4, The Fathers of the second and third centuries waver 
between the simple humanity and the complete divinity of 
Christ. 

5. The Council of Nica makes Christ of the same essen- 
tial nature with God. 

6. The Council of Constantinople unites Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit in one Trinity. 

7. The Council of Ephesus makes Christ’s two natures 
not distinct but united. 


1The second part, beginning with Article 29. See Appendix, page 
473. 


32 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


8. The Council of Chalcedon makes these two natures 
united in one person. 

The orthodox doctrine, then, against which Unitarianism 
was to protest, was, in brief, this: that the one God exists 
in three persons, and that one of these persons has two 
natures. 

The whole controversy which we have been following, and 
which convulsed the growing Christian Church religiously, 
and the declining Roman Empire politically, for over a hun- 
dred and thirty years, may seem to us now to have been a 
controversy not about living realities, but about mere 
words; and the solutions reached at Nicea and Chalcedon 
may seem to us to have been mere verbal solutions, which 
leave the question after all pretty much where it was at the 
start. We must not forget, however, that to many Chris- 
tians of the third and fourth centuries these seemed su- 
premely vital matters, involving the very essence, and even 
the permanent existence, of their Christian faith; for all this 
struggle had also its deep religious side, and expressed an 
earnest and sincere purpose in many hearts. 

The character and methods of the Councils that estab- 
lished these doctrines are not, it is true, calculated to give 
us great reverence for their Christian character, nor much 
respect for their opinions; while the repeated interference 
of the civil power to enforce decisions of doctrine in its own 
interest was as vicious as it well could be. Yet the changes 
of thought that we have noted do not quite deserve to be 
called, as they often have been, “corruptions of Christian- 
ity.” No one tried, or wished, to “corrupt”? the Christian 
faith. It was, indeed, a vast change from the simple re- 
hgion of the sermon on the mount and the parables of 
Jesus to the theology of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds ; 


ORTHODOX THEOLOGY TO 451 A. D. 33 


and the whole emphasis shifted from a religion of the heart 
and life to abstract speculations of the head. Yet when we 
have made all deductions for the political intrigues and the 
mean jealousies and the unscrupulous ambitions that so 
often accompanied them, we find at the bottom of these con- 
troversies an earnest and honest desire in the best minds to 
state the theory of the new Christian religion in terms which 
the cultured old world of Greek thought could accept. For 
at the beginning of the fourth century the Christian Church 
was in grave danger of falling to pieces unless it could es- 
tablish a place for itself in Greek civilization, which still did 
the world’s thinking; and the movement we have been follow- 
ing probably saved Christianity for the Greek and Roman 
world. 

The development of the doctrines of the Trinity and the 
Deity of Christ must therefore have a profound interest for 
every one that follows the history of the Christian Church 
in the days of its struggling young life. Small wonder that 
after this life-and-death struggle over them these doctrines 
should have been guarded as the very soul of Christian faith, 
so that whoever doubted or denied them seemed to be strik- 
ing at the heart not merely of Christian orthodoxy, but even 
of all religion, and to be little if any better than an atheist. 
This feeling became deeply rooted in the minds of Christians 
the world over; and it was intensified by laws which made 
heresy a terrible crime. It will help us to understand why | 
in later times those who, after comparing the Creeds with 
their New Testaments, came to prefer the simple belief in 
the unity of God and the humanity of Christ to the mys- 
teries of the Trinity and the God-Man, were looked on as 
deadly enemies of Christianity, and as deserving of the most 
extreme punishment. It will give a clue to the current of 


34 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


persecution which flows through almost the whole history of 
Unitarianism, and makes it tragic with the sufferings of 
confessors and the blood of martyrs. 

Before closing this chapter we should briefly mention 
three other doctrines that presently took form, which Uni- 
tarianism also came to oppose. First, the doctrine worked 
out by Augustine, and later adopted by Calvin, that man 
even from infancy has a nature totally depraved by sin. 
Second, the doctrine, also from Augustine and emphasized 
by Calvin, that God from the beginning chose (by “elec- 
tion,” or “‘predestination’”’) certain souls to be saved, and 
others to be lost. Third, the doctrine that Jesus, by a 
“vicarious atonement,” saved men by suffering in their 
stead, as their substitute. It was against the two great 
central doctrines of orthodox theology, together with these 
three minor ones, that the pioneers of Unitarianism raised 
their protest, as inconsistent with Scripture, and offensive 
to reason or the moral sense. 

The Unitarian movement, as we saw in the first chapter, 
does not really begin till the time of the Protestant Refor- 
mation; but it continually harks back to the simple faith 
of primitive Christianity, and continually protests against 
the central doctrines of the orthodox Creeds. We should 
only half understand the reason and meaning of these pro- 
tests if we had not seen why and how these Creeds came into 
being, what they are, and what they mean. Now that we 
have done that, we are prepared to start where the first 
Unitarian reformers started, and to follow the whole story 
of the movement they began, with a clear understanding of 
their task, and of their aims in pursuing it. 


DIVISION II 


SCATTERED PIONEERS OF UNITA- 
RIANISM IN EUROPE 






' i ny: 
4 








‘ ee 


a 
t 
fee ag 


‘ ; «sack al F \; 
z , hb a ey oy - 
’ nc = og j i 
x ae et wi were 
- “y= Fe 4 a Ve: 
7 7 th « 4 
+5 
: 
+ ¥ . ¥ i 
a « . 
ts r : » 
; ’ - 4% 








‘ S ¥ ; 
We ty ie i 


Tf ihe ie 









‘ : ’ 
—_ ib 
i 
4 
| E 
: « 5 t 
im ; 
j 
4) 
| . 
} ’ 
iat tas ' ‘ 
t 2 
‘i Mord 
‘ 
ss » ; A 
< a, 





CHAPTER VI 


THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION AND THE 
BEGINNINGS OF MODERN UNITARIANISM, 
1517-1530 


In the previous chapters we have seen how the system of 
orthodox theology gradually grew up, and how by the de- 
crees of church Councils and of Emperors its beliefs were so 
fastened upon Christians that denial of them was declared 
a heresy, and was punished as a crime. If at rare intervals 
heretics were rash enough to raise their voices and call in 
question an old doctrine, or proclaim a new one, they were 
soon put to silence. By this means Christian thought was 
kept nearly stagnant for over a thousand years. 

Early in the sixteenth century, however, various in- 
fluences were conspiring to bring about great changes in 
men’s religious views. In the first place, Constantinople, 
capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, had fallen into the 
hands of the Turks in 1453, and the Christian scholars living 
there had scattered over western Europe, bringing with 
them, especially to Italy, manuscripts of classical authors 
long forgotten during the Dark Ages in the West. A whole 
new library of the world’s greatest literature was thus sud- 
denly thrown open to educated men. Hence arose the 
movement variously called the Revival of Learning, or the 
Renaissance, or Humanism, which sprang up and brought 
forth in Europe the beginnings of modern literature, mod- 


ern art, modern science, and modern tendencies in govern- 
37 


38 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


ment. In the second place, the invention of printing about 
the middle of the fifteenth century made it possible for new 
ideas to spread as they had never spread before, and above 
all for men everywhere for the first time to read the Bible 
for themselves. Finally, the discovery of a New World in 
1492, and of a new route to the Indies soon after, expanded 
the world’s horizon to a degree hitherto undreamed of, and 
never to be possible again. The result of such influences 
as these was that men were no longer so well content as be- 
fore to live in a limited world, and to think only the 
thoughts that had been handed down to them from past 
ages. Instead, they began to think for themselves, and to 
venture out into fields of thought hitherto forbidden to 
them. : 

In the religious world these new influences caused perhaps 
even a greater ferment of thought than elsewhere; and this 
at length came to a head in 1517 when the Catholic monk, 
Martin Luther, posted his ninety-five theses on the church 
door at Wittenberg, and thus began the Protestant Refor- 
mation. For it must be remembered that up to this time 
the existing Church everywhere in western Europe was the 
Roman Catholic Church, and that the doctrines everywhere 
taught were Catholic doctrines. Nevertheless, when the 
Reformation began, it was the farthest from the thoughts 
of Luther and those that sympathized with him to form a 
new Protestant Church, separate from the Catholic Church, 
and even hostile to it. They desired simply to bring about 
a reform of certain flagrant abuses and corrupt practices, 
so that the Church might be purer in the character of its 
clergy, and might better meet the religious needs of the peo- 
ple at large. Least of all had they any intention of trying 
to reform the doctrines of Christianity as those were defined 
in the great Creeds. Melanchthon, who soon became the 


BEGINNINGS OF MODERN UNITARIANISM — 39 


great theologian of the Reformation in Germany, spoke for 
Protestants in general when he said, “We do not differ from 
the Roman Church on any point of doctrine.” 

When, however, Protestants had once thrown off the au- 
thority of the Catholic Church in other matters, there was 
every likelihood that they would soon begin to examine into 
the truth of the doctrines they had received from it; and 
that all the more, since they were coming gradually to re- 
gard the Bible, instead of the Church, as the supreme au- 
thority in all matters of religion. In fact, as soon as they 
began to compare the doctrines of the Creeds with the 
teachings of the Bible, most of the leading reformers at 
first showed signs of a wavering belief in the Catholic doc- 
trines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. The founda- 
tions for such distrust had been laid even before the Refor- 
mation by Erasmus of Rotterdam, the most famous biblical 
scholar of his age, a man who, though he gave strong impulse 
to the Reformation, yet himself never left the Catholic 
Church. In his edition of the Greek New Testament, pub- 
lished in 1516, he omitted as an interpolation the text which 
had long been appealed to as the strongest scriptural proof 
of the doctrine of the Trinity,’ and by this and his notes | 
on the New Testament went far to undermine belief in that 
doctrine for those who took the Bible for their sole author- 
ity. For this he was long appealed to by Antitrinitarians, 
reproached by orthodox Protestants, and considered an 
Arian ” or an Antitrinitarian by Catholics. 

Luther himself heartily disliked the word Trinity and 
other terms used in the Creeds in speaking of that doctrine, 
because they were not found in the Scriptures, but were only | 


11 John 5:7. Compare the Revised Version with the Authorized, 
noting the omission. 
2 See page 17, 


40 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


human inventions. He accordingly left them out of his 
Catechisms, and omitted the invocation of the Trinity from 
his litany, and declared that he much preferred to say 
God rather than Trinity, which had a frigid sound. Cath- 
glic writers therefore did not hesitate to call him an Arian. 
\ Melanchthon, too, in the first work which he published on 
the doctrines of the reformers, instead of treating the doc- 
trine of the Trinity as the very center of the Christian 
faith, passed it by with scarcely a comment, as a mystery 
which it was not necessary for a Christian to understand ; 
and he also was charged with Arianism. 

Even Calvin, who later on, as leader of the Reformation 
in Geneva, was to cause Servetus to be burned at the stake 
for denying the doctrine of the Trinity, declared earlier in 
his career that the Nicene Creed was better suited to be 
sung as a song than to be used as an expression of faith; 
while he also expressed disapproval of the Athanasian Creed 
and dislike of the commonly used prayer to the Holy Trin- 
ity, and in his Catechism touched upon the doctrine very 
lightly. He had in his turn to defend himself against the 
charge of Arianism and Sabellianism.t) Much the same 
might be said with regard to the views of other leaders of 
the Reformation: Zwingli at Ziirich, Farel at Geneva, and 
(Ecolampadius at Basel. 

Now all this does not in the least mean that the chief 
leaders of Protestantism were at first more than half Uni- 
tarian in belief, or that they deserved the charge of heresy 
which their opponents flung at them, and which they with 
one accord denied; but it does mean that they were at least 
doubtful whether these doctrines of the Catholic faith could 
be found in the Bible, and whether they should be accepted 
as an essential part of Protestant belief. It is therefore 


1 See page 15. 


BEGINNINGS OF MODERN UNITARIANISM § 41 


quite possible that if nothing had occurred to disturb the 
quiet development of their thought, these doctrines might 
within a generation or two have come to be quietly ignored 
as not important to Christian faith, and might at length 
have been discarded outright as mere inventions of men. 
Instead of this happening, however, it came to pass that 
when the reformers of Germany and Switzerland came at 
length to decide what statements of the Protestant belief 
they should adopt in their new Confessions, they kept as 
many as possible of the old Catholic doctrines, and espe- 
cially emphasized their adherence to the Nicene and Atha- 
nasian Creeds. 

Now, why and how did this result come about, leaving to 
Protestantism a system of belief of which one part was 
based upon the authority of Scripture, while the other was 
simply taken over from the tradition of the Catholic 
Church? There were two principal reasons. In the first, 
place, those who first proclaimed beliefs which led in the di- 
rection of Unitarianism were leaders in the sect of the Ana- 
baptists, and these beliefs were thus unfortunately associ- 
ated, as we shall see in the next chapter, with certain ex- 
travagant and fanatical tendencies in that sect, which 
seemed to threaten the overthrow of all social and religious 
order. The fate of the Reformation still hung in the bal- 
ance; and the reformers could not afford to take any risks 
by tolerating a movement which, on account of its radical 
social tendencies, would be certain to alienate the sympathy 
of the princes who had thus far supported it; for if these 
were now to abandon it, it must inevitably fail. Hence the 
reformers had to remain on conservative ground, and they 
therefore opposed the Anabaptists and tried to silence their 
leaders. 

In the second place, Servetus, the first writer to attract 


ee 


42 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


much attention in Europe by his writings against the Cath- 
olic doctrine of the Trinity, instead of gently and subtly un- 
dermining it, brought fresh and severe criticism upon Prot- 
estantism by the sharpness of his attacks upon what had for 
a millennium been considered the most sacred dogma of the 
Christian religion, and he so shocked and angered the re- 
formers themselves that they recoiled from him in horror. 
But for this reason also, they might perhaps have gradually 
gone on from their early misgivings about the doctrine un- 
til they had left it far behind. As it was, being forced to 
choose at once between seeming to approve of Servetus and 
his positions, and remaining on the perfectly safe ground of 
the old doctrines, they naturally enough did the latter, and 
with one consent disowned Servetus and denounced his 
teaching. How this result came about in this twofold way, 
we shall see in the next following chapters. 


CHAPTER VII 


ANTITRINITARIANISM AMONG THE EARLY 
ANABAPTISTS, 1517-1530 


We have now to trace through several chapters the story 
of how, during the half-century after the beginning of the 
Reformation, Christians who could not accept the orthodox 
doctrines about the Trinity and the person of Christ tried 
in various parts of western Europe to proclaim views more 
or less Unitarian, only sooner or later to be met in each 
case by excommunication from the Church, banishment from 
home, imprisonment, or even death itself, until at length 
countries were found whose laws allowed them freedom of 
conscience, and thus made it possible for them to worship 
God after their own manner and to organize churches of 
their own. 

The first of those to adopt and teach these views were 
found in what is known as the Anabaptist movement. This 
movement was one which, though it had some able and edu- 
cated leaders, found its chief following among the humbler 
classes of society. It was in fact a loose fusion of two quite 
different elements: a popular religious movement of devout 
and earnest souls whose spiritual ancestry went back of the 
Reformation to circles of pious mystics and humble Chris- 
tians in the bosom of the Catholic Church in the Middle 
Ages, out of which had come such devout classics as the 
Imitation of Christ; and along with this, a popular social 


movement among the peasantry, whose sense of the wrongs 
43 


4A OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


and oppressions they had long suffered had been stirred up 
anew by the Reformation, and who looked for a reformed 
religion to bring them a reformed social order. Both re- 
ligiously and socially they were the radicals of the Protes- 
tant Reformation. 

The Anabaptist movement took its rise in 1525 at Ziirich, 
as the radical wing of the Swiss Reformation which had be- 
gun there under the leadership of Zwingli; but it soon got 
beyond control, and it ran into such extravagances that 
some of its leaders were put to death, and others with their 
followers were banished. Yet the movement seemed some- 
how to answer a strong religious and social demand, and in 
spite of persecutions, and of an edict of the Diet of Speyer 
in 1529 that every Anabaptist should be put to death, it 
soon spread like wild-fire over large parts of Western Eu- 
rope; and in our story we shall meet it in Western Germany, 
Holland, Italy, Switzerland, Moravia, Poland, Transyl- 
vania, and England. These Anabaptists embraced a wide 
variety of teachings, differing according to their leader or 
the locality; but the one thing which was common to them 
all, and which seemed most sharply to distinguish them from 
other Protestants, was their objection to infant baptism, 
and their insistence that upon reaching adult Christian 
life persons who had been baptized in infancy should be 
baptized again. Hence the name given them by their op- 
ponents, Ana-baptists (i.e., re-baptizers); although this 
name was ere long applied, in more or less reproach, to re- 
ligious radicals of the period, in general, without much re- 
gard to their particular beliefs as to baptism. 

Their interest in the question of baptism, however, was 
only incidental. Their first concern was in the establish- 
ment of a pure Church, reformed from the ground up by 
its strict adherence in every particular to the teachings of 


THE EARLY ANABAPTISTS 45 


Scripture, which they accepted literally and tried faithfully 
to follow. ‘Thus they believed that followers of Christ 
should not resist evil, nor bear arms, nor own private 
property, nor hold civil office, nor resort to law courts, nor 
take oaths; and their movement was largely a lay movement. 
In these respects they might be called the Quakers of their 
time; and indeed the Quakers of England were not a little 
influenced by their teaching and example. They also be- 
lieved in separation of Church and State, and stood firmly 
for freedom of conscience and against religious persecution. 
In their view of religious knowledge they were mystics, hold- 
ing that God makes his truth and will known to the souls of 
men directly, and they relied much upon the guidance of 
the Spirit ; but though they were in the main people of most 
exemplary lives, they would sometimes ascribe to the influ- 
ence of the divine Spirit impulses which seemed to others 
to have a very human origin, and thus in the name of reli- 
gion some of them ran into gross immorality. 

Instead, however, of having the backing of the civil power, 
as the Lutherans did, the Anabaptists were generally op- 
posed by it; unfortunately they had no leader like Luther 
powerful enough to guide their movement and hold it in 
control; and they were far too loosely organized to be able 
to control their own members. The result was that a move- 
ment which had in it much that was good was at length 
wrecked by the excesses of its wilder adherents. At Miin- 
ster, where it was especially strong, it took a revolutionary 
form; and such civil disorder ensued and such fanaticism 
ruled that the whole movement had in 1535 to be suppressed 
with terrible bloodshed. Now disturbances such as these 
tended to bring the whole Protestant movement into ill re- 
pute, and the leaders of the Reformation reacted in alarm 
and disgust. The Anabaptists were therefore more bitterly 


46 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


hated and more harshly persecuted than were the members 
of any other religious movement during the sixteenth cen- 
tury; and it is said that by 1546 no fewer than 30,000 of 
them had been put to death in Holland and Friesland. The 
remnants of them that survived persecution were at length 
gathered into a more compact body with sober leadership; 
and of these sprang the Mennonites of Holland, and the 
Baptists of England and America. 

Our reason for being interested in the Anabaptists in this 
history is that, though the majority of them remained or- 
thodox on the main doctrines of the Creeds, some of their 
most distinguished leaders became decidedly liberal, and in- 
stead of stopping where Luther stopped, went on to reject 
doctrines, like that of the Trinity, which were not taught 
in the Scriptures. Since these were the earliest pioneers of 
Unitarianism in Europe, it will be worth while to glance at 
the career of a few of them and see what they believed, and 
what became of them and their doctrine. 

Martin Cellarius (or Borrhéius) deserves to be remem- 
bered because he is said to have been the first Protestant 
openly to proclaim antitrinitarian beliefs. He was born 
at Stuttgart in 1499, was liberally educated, and became a 
friend of Melanchthon. While leading the life of a teacher 
in Germany he early in life became an Anabaptist, and for 
this he suffered imprisonment in Prussia. He published 
in 1527 a book, On the Works of God, in which he taught 
that Jesus was God only in the sense in which we may all 
be gods—by being filled with God’s spirit. For spreading 
this and other heretical views, he was obliged in 1536, after 
his release from prison, to flee to Switzerland; but there 
he became professor at the University of Basel, and was 
permitted to live in peace until his death of the plague in 
1564. 


THE EARLY ANABAPTISTS A] 


The most important of all the antitrinitarian Anabap- 
tists was Hans Denck, who has been called one of the pro- 
foundest thinkers of the sixteenth century. Born in Bavaria 
about 1495, he became famous as an accomplished He- 
brew and classical scholar, and was appointed rector of a 
celebrated school at Nuremberg; but for having become an 
Anabaptist he was after a year deprived of his office and 
ordered in 1524 to leave the city before nightfall. From a 
book which he published later it is clear that he was far from 
accepting the usual orthodox teaching as to the Trinity, 
for he gave the doctrine a mystical sort of explanation 
which altogether changed its established meaning; and he 
was also unorthodox as to the atonement, and the eternal 
punishment of the wicked. For some years after his ban- 
ishment he lived the life of a wandering preacher, persecuted 
for his faith and driven from city to city, till at last he 
found a brief refuge at Basel, where he was carried off by 
the plague in 1527. 

A third Anabaptist Antitrinitarian was Johannes Cam- 
panus, who was born near the border between Belgium and 
Germany. He was a scholar, and for a time he enjoyed 
the friendship of Luther and Melanchthon; but he became 
more or less influenced by Anabaptist tendencies, and fell 
under suspicion on account of his utterances as to the Trin- 
ity. After suffering imprisonment and other persecution 
for attempting to win converts to his views by preaching, 
he determined to spread them in a book, which he issued 
about 1531 “in opposition to the whole world since the 
Apostles,” of which the gentle Melanchthon said that its au- 
thor deserved to be hanged. In this and another work he 
strove to expose and correct the corruptions of Christian 
doctrine, and to restore the pure teaching of primitive 
Christianity. He taught that only two persons are divine, 


48 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the Father and the Son, that the Son is inferior to the 
Father, and that the Spirit is not a person, but a divine 
power. For stirring up the peasants he was arrested about 
1553, and is said to have been imprisoned at Kleve for some 
twenty-six years. 

Perhaps the most extraordinary career of all was that of 
David Joris, who was born in Flanders or Holland in 1501. 
He was brought up the son of a traveling mountebank, and 
was quite without education. Having become an Anabap- 
tist preacher he said he was a prophet, and showed an ex- 
traordinary power of attracting devoted personal followers. 
While much of a fanatic, he was withal a man of keen mind, 
and was the author of nearly three hundred works, of which 
the most important was entitled The Wonderbook. He 
taught that the doctrine of the Trinity tends only to ob- 
scure our knowledge of God, in whose being there is no dis- 
tinction of persons. For nearly ten years he traveled 
about Holland and adjoining parts of Germany and gath- 
ered many followers, though often obliged to go in disguise 
in order to avoid the persecutions that continued to follow 
him and them, in the course of which his mother was put to 
death, and he himself had numerous hair-breadth escapes. 
At length he resolved to go beyond the reach of his perse- 
cutors, and in some distant land to wait in peace for the 
second coming of Christ, which he fervently expected to 
live to witness. After traveling as far as Venice in search 
of a place, he returned to Switzerland and with a few 
trusted friends settled in 1544 at Basel, under the assumed 
name of Jan van Brugge. He was admitted to citizenship, 
joined the Reformed Church, purchased an estate, and lived 
in grand style out of the wealth which his followers had en- 
trusted to him, was bountiful to the poor, and was held in 
great respect for his irreproachable life until 1556 when he 


THE EARLY ANABAPTISTS ‘49 


died, having all along kept up a secret correspondence with 
his Anabaptist followers in Holland. 

Then followed one of those droll humors which sometimes 
enliven the page of religious history. Three years later the 
real identity of Jan van Brugge was discovered. The pious 
citizens of Basel were scandalized beyond measure. Little 
could now be done to mend matters, but that little was done 
in the most thorough manner. In accordance with an old 
medieval custom a formal trial was instituted against the 
deceased. The theological faculty of the University inves- 
tigated the case of David Joris and pronounced him guilty 
of the most blasphemous heresies ; whereupon the authorities 
passed sentence of burning upon the heretic. His grave 
was opened, and his body was exhibited to the spectators, 
and was then, along with all his books and his portrait, pub- 
licly burnt by the common hangman, after which his family 
were required to do penance in the cathedral. Thus the 
serlous reproach of having entertained a heretic unawares 
was at length removed from the consciences of the worthy 
Basileans. 

It will be necessary to do little more than mention the 
names of three others who are classed among the Anabap- 
tists, and of whom indeed little 1s known save their fate. 
Jakob Kautz, a young preacher of Bockenheim, who denied 
the doctrine of eternal punishment and zealously defended 
at Worms the views of Denck, was imprisoned at Strassburg 
in 1528, and then banished. In 1580 at Basel, Conradin 
Bassen, who had denied the deity of Christ, was beheaded 
and his head was set up on a pole. For similar errors 
Michael Sattler, who had been leader of Anabaptist 
churches in Switzerland, after having his tongue cut out 
and pieces of flesh torn from his body, was burned at the 
stake at Rothenburg on the Neckar, in 1527. 


50 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


It should not be inferred that these Anabaptist heretics 
are to be closely identified with Unitarianism, in the modern 
sense of that term. For while it is true that they were all 
more or less unsound as to the Trinity and their views of 
Christ, yet they were also all more or less full of vagaries 
with which Unitarians have had little sympathy. More- 
over, the two are radically different as to temper of mind. 
The Anabaptists were in their religious temperament mys- 
tics, relying implicitly upon, some inner light for religious 
guidance, and were therefore always in danger of running 
into fanaticism; whereas Unitarianism has throughout its 
history been marked by its faith in the calmer guidance of 
reason, and if sometimes cold, has at all events always re- 
mained sane. 

The important point to note about the Anabaptists in 
connection with this history is that these radicals of the 
early Reformation, springing from widely separated places 
in Protestant Europe, bear witness to a widespread dissat- 
isfaction with the Catholic doctrines about God and Christ, 
and illustrate many different attempts (for no two of them 
thought alike) to arrive at beliefs more in harmony with 
Scripture, and more acceptable to reason, than were the 
doctrines of the creeds. Having to bear, however, the 
double weight of heresy and fanaticism, they were fore- 
doomed to failure. Unitarian thought had to wait for 
saner teachers, more sober leaders, and freer laws, before 
it could become organized and hope to spread. If this 
tendency of thought was thus crushed in Switzerland, Ger- 
many, and Holland, the liberalizing influence of the Ana- 
baptist movement had meanwhile spread to other lands; and 
we shall later see how in Italy, Poland, England, and even 
in Holland itself, it was among Anabaptists that Unitarian 
thought first arose. 


THE EARLY ANABAPTISTS 51 


Meantime what the development of a more liberal theol- 
ogy most needed was a spokesman, who was not handicapped 
from the start by association with a discredited movement, 
and who, instead of joining his attacks upon the doctrine 
of the Trinity with various other speculations, should win 
more pointed attention by concentrating his attacks upon 
that doctrine alone. Such a leader appeared in the person 
of Servetus, to whom we must next turn. 


CHAPTER VIII 
MICHAEL SERVETUS: EARLY LIFE, 1511-1532 


In a previous chapter we saw that the leaders of the 
Protestant Reformation, noting the fact that the teaching © 
of the Catholic Creeds as to the Trinity and the two natures” 
in Christ was not to be found in Scripture, seemed at first 
half inclined, if not quite yet to deny those doctrines out-~ 
right, at all events to pass them by without emphasis, as 
doctrines not necessary to salvation. We next saw how 
some of the Anabaptist leaders who were so bold as to deny 
those doctrines, brought their own views on these matters 
into the greater disrepute through the extravagance of 
their movement in other directions. Now if the case had 
been dropped here, it might have been long before Antitrini- 
tarian views would have asserted themselves in Protestant- 
ism; but we have now to turn to a man who arose just when 
the Anabaptist heretics had been pretty well put to silence, 
and forced the question upon the attention of the Reformers 
more insistently and sharply than ever. This man was a 
Spanish. Catholic-named._Michael Servetus.1 He was in 
more than one respect one of the most remarkable men of 
the sixteenth century; while the tragic death which he suf- 
fered made him the first and most conspicuous martyr to 
the faith whose history we are following. 


1This is the Latin form of his name, and the one esmmanly used. 
His full name in its correct Spanish form was (Miguel Serveto \alias 
Reves. Other forms often met with rest upon error or mistaken Con- 


jecture. 
52 


THE EARLY LIFE OF SERVETUS 53 


Though our records of the life of Servetus are scanty and 
inconsistent, and the gaps in them have often been filled up 
by conjectures which have later proved to be mistaken, it 
seems _most likely that he was born in 1511 at Tudela, a 
small city in Navarre, and that in his infancy his parents 
removed to Villanueva in Aragon, where his father had re- 
ceived an appointment as royal Notary, an office of some 
distinction, and where the family lived in handsome style. 
His parents were devoted Catholics, and it is thought that 
he may at first have been designed for the priesthood. Lit- 
tle is known to a certainty about his early education, but he 
seems to have been a precocious youth, and early in his 
teens to have acquired a knowledge of Latin, Greek, and 
Hebrew, and to have become well versed in mathematics and — 
the scholastic philosophy. 

There was much going on in Spain at this period to make 
a serious-minded youth thoughtful about questions of re- 
ligion. Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic were on the 
throne, determined to secure political unity in their new 
nation by compelling religious uniformity; and a spirit of 
the most intolerant orthodoxy controlled the government. 
In 1492, for refusing to deny the faith of their fathers and 
profess Christianity, 800,000 Jews had been banished from 
the kingdom. In the same year the Moors had been over-_. 
thrown in Granada, and although for a few years they were 
“granted toleration, they were soon compelled. to. choose be- 
tween abandoning their Mohammedanism and bemg driven 
from Spain. In both cases it was the dogma of the Trinity . 
that proved the insurmountable obstacle for races which 
held as the first article of their faith the undivided unity 
of God. Within the generation including Servetus’s boy- 
hood, some 20,000 victims, Jewish or Mohammedan, were 
thus burned at the stake. Despite the resistance of the 


54 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


liberty-loving Aragonians, the Inquisition was set up among 
them to root out heresy; and these things must all have 
made a deep impression upon the mind of the young Serve- 
tus, and may well have laid the foundation for the main pas- 
sion of his life. 

Whatever may have been intended for him before, when 
Servetus was seventeen his father determined that he should 
enter the law, and to that end sent him across the Pyrenees 
to the University of Toulouse, then the most celebrated in 
France. Here he made a most wonderful discovery. For 
the first time in his life he found a Bible to read.! ) He 
simply devoured it. It seemed to him as though it were 
a book fallen into his hands from heaven, containing the 
sum of all philosophy and all science, and it made upon 
him a profound impression which lasted as long as he 
lived. For hitherto he had been taught to believe that 
the dogma of the Trinity was the very center of the Chris- 
tian religion, and he knew that for refusing to accept it 
thousands in his own land had recently been put to death. 
Despite all this, the doctrine as taught in the schools 
had seemed to him but a dead thing, yielding no inspira- 
tion for his religious life, and used chiefly as a subject 
of hair-splitting debates between scholastic theologians. 
Now to his surprise and infinite relief he found in the Bible 
nothing of all this, but instead the most wonderful religious 
book in all the world, full of life, and revealing to him as a 
vivid reality the great, loving heart of Christ. The more 
he read it, the more he was inspired by it, and the more_ 
he became convinced that not only for Jews and Moham- 
medans but for all men the doctrine of the Trinity as then 


1 Luther also at the age of eighteen saw_a Bible for the first time at 
the University of Erfurt, and left the study of the law for the service 
of the Church. 


THE EARLY LIFE OF SERVETUS 55 


taught in the Church was the greatest stumbling-block. 
For the masses of the people could never comprehend it, 
and even the teachers themselves seemed not to understand 
it. His mind was made up. He would devote his life to ex- 
posing the errors in this doctrine, and to showing men what 
was the true teaching of the Bible about God and Christ. 
He was as yet but eighteen years old! 

The study of the law had by now lost any attraction it 
may ever have had for him, and after about a year at the 
University he left it for the service of the friar Juan de 
Quintana, soon to become confessor to the young Emperor, 
Charles V. He followed his master to court, and never saw 
his parents or his native land again. Thus it happened 
that as one of the Emperor’s suite Servetus was early in 
1530 present at Bologna, where Charles, though he had 
long since been crowned Emperor in Germany, was now to 
receive from Pope Clement VII a religious coronation with 
both the iron crown of Lombardy and the crown of the 
Holy Roman Empire, amid scenes of the most riotous lux- 
ury and extravagance that the modern world had ever 
known. Here Servetus received a second profound impres- 
sion upon his religious experience, calculated by sharp con- 
trast to emphasize that made by his recent discovery of the 
Bible. For on the one hand he saw the Pope bowed down 
to by the earth’s mightiest as little less than a god, and this 
filled him with a revulsion from which he never recovered; ! 
while on the other hand, behind the scenes, he saw among 


1 Over twenty years afterwards, in the last year of his life, his in- 
dignation and disgust still boil over as he writes, “With these very eyes 
I saw him borne with pomp on the shoulders of princes, and in the pub- 
lic streets adored by the whole people kneeling, to such a point that 
those that succeeded even in kissing his feet or his shoes deemed them- 
selves happy beyond the rest. Oh, beast of beasts the most wicked! 
Most shameless of harlots !” 


56 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the highest dignitaries of the Church sickening evidences of 
wordliness, selfish ambition, cynical skepticism, and uncon- 
cealed immorality. Henceforth the official religion of the 
Church seemed to him but a hollow mockery, and the Pope 
became for him the very Antichrist predicted in the?) New 
Testament. 

From Bologna the Emperor proceeded to Germany to 
attend the famous Diet of Augsburg, where Protestantism 
was to receive political recognition under the Empire, and 
where Melanchthon was to offer for the Emperor’s approval 
the Augsburg Confession as a statement of the Protestant 
doctrines. Servetus followed in the Emperor’s suite. He 
had no doubt already seen some of the writings of Melanch- 
thon, and perhaps also of others of the reformers; and 
he must have been eager to see and hear men who, like him- 
self, had at heart the great cause of purifying the Church. 
Although with his position in the service of the man who 
had the Emperor’s closest confidence, and with his own tal- 
ents, he had the most enviable opportunity for worldly ad- 
vancement, the only thing that_now really interested him 
was to reform the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. He evi- 
dently saw little chance of accomplishing anything in this 
direction in Catholic circles, and so he gave up all his 
worldly prospects, left Quintana’s service, and went to seek 
the leaders of Protestantism. For although the Augsburg 
Confession had just declared that Protestants accepted the 
Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the Protestant Churches 
had not yet adopted a permanent creed of their own; and 
he felt that if he could only get the chance to lay his views 
before the leaders of Protestant thought, he could surely. 
get them to see the doctrine of the Trinity as he saw it. | 

Servetus accordingly went in the autumn of 1530 to Ba- 
sel, and sought repeated interviews with CEcolampadius, the 


THE EARLY LIFE OF SERVETUS 57 


leader of the Reformation in that city. Though Servetus 
was but a youth of nineteen, a foreigner and a Catholic, and 
Ccolampadius was far more than twice his age, a distin- 
guished man busy with important affairs, yet he received 
Servetus for some time patiently, and though scandalized 
by the views he expressed tried to convince him of his errors. 
Before long he found Servetus so conceited, so obstinate in 
his opinions, and so much more bent on pressing his own 
views than upon humbly seeking to learn the truth, that | he 
lost patience ; and when pervetus complained because EBiee 
reply, “I have more reason for complaint than you. You 
thrust yourself upon me as if I had nothing to do but 
answer your questions.” Servetus therefore, after having 
failed to get an interview with Erasmus who was then living 
at Basel, next went to Strassburg to see what he might ac- 
complish with the reformers there. 

Now Strassburg was at that time the most liberal of the 
Protestant cities. Denck and other Anabaptists had been 
there but a few years before, and their influence was still 
felt. Bucer (Butzer) and Capito, the Strassburg reform- 
ers, received Servetus most kindly, and as they seemed at 
first to feel some sympathy for his views, he began to hope 
that here at last they would be adopted. But Zwingli, the 
founder and leader of the Swiss Reformation, who had al- 
ready been told of Servetus’s heretical opinions, had warned 
the other reformers against these dreadful blasphemies as 
he considered them, lest they spread and bring incalculable 
harm upon the Protestant cause. So that in the end Ser- 
vetus made no better progress here than at Basel. 

It may seem almost incredible that a youth of nineteen 
should have had the effrontery thus to approach the ac- 
knowledged leaders of Protestant thought, men more than 


58 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


twice his age, and to assume to set them right as to the 
very first and most important article of their faith; but, as 
he later declared, he felt moved in this matter by a divine 
impulse, as though he had a fresh revelation from God to 
communicate. If he could but once get his views fairly be- 
fore men’s minds, they would be sure to be accepted; and 
then the whole world could easily be won to the Christian 
faith. Nothing daunted therefore, and without trying to 
travel further and attempt to win over Melanchthon or 
Luther, he now resolved upon another course. He would 
put his views into print where every one might see them. 
Even this was not so easily managed. At Basel, the pub- 
lishing center of northern Europe, the printer would not 
take the risk of publishing his manuscript; but after a little 
while one was found elsewhere who would print the book, 
though he dared not put his name and place on the title-page. 
Servetus, however, had no such misgivings, but was so con- 
fident in his cause that he boldly printed his own name as 
author. 

Thus was issued in the summer of 1531, at Hagenau in 
Alsace, a little book which was destined to start a profound 
revolution in the religious world. It was entitled On the 
Errors of the Trinity." It was written in rather crude 
Latin, with thoughts not too well digested or arranged, 
though its main intention is clear enough, and it shows a 
remarkable range of reading for a youth. It was put on 
sale in the Rhine cities, and its influence soon spread far and 
wide through Switzerland and Germany and into northern 
Italy; and wherever it was read it won marked attention. 
Servetus seems naively still to have expected that the re- 


1De Trinitatis Erroribus libri septem. Per Michaelem Serveto, alias 
Reves, ab Aragonia Hispanum. Anno MDXXXI. pp. 2388, small 
oat 


THE EARLY LIFE OF SERVETUS 59 


formers would actually welcome his contribution to their 
cause as soon as they took time to reflect on what he had to 
say; but instead they were thrown into the greatest conster- 
nation by it. Melanchthon, it is true, admitted that he 
was reading it a good deal; and he and (&colampadius 
agreed that it contained many good points; but any slight 
praise was soon drowned by the general chorus of denun- 
ciation. To Luther it seemed “an abominably wicked 
book”; Melanchthon foresaw (correctly enough, as the 
event proved) great tragedies resulting from it ; dicolampa- 
dius saw the whole Reformation imperiled by this new Hy- 
dra, if he were tolerated, since the Emperor would hold the 
Protestant churches_responsible. for. these odious blasphe- 
‘mies ; Bucer said from his pulpit that the author deserved to 
be drawn and quartered;' and the vocabulary in general 
was exhausted for offensive epithets to heap upon him. It 
was charged that he must have gone to Africa and learned 
his doctrine from the Moors, and that he was in secret 
league with the Grand Turk who was just then threatening 
to conquer Christian Europe. As soon as the character of 
the book became generally known the sale of it was forbid- 
den at Basel and Strassburg; and when it was brought next 
year to the notice of Quintana, to his infinite chagrin that it 
should have been written by one who had been his protégé, 


he had “that most pestilent book” at once prohibited | 
throughout the Empire. So thoroughly was it suppressed 


that some twenty years later, when a copy was eagerly > 


wanted at Geneva in the trial of Servetus for heresy, not 
one could be found. 


At the request of Gicolampadius, Bucer wrote a refuta- 


tion of Servetus’s book (which, however, he never ventured 


1So Calvin wrote in 1553, long afterwards; but the authenticity of 
this statement is much doubted. 


weet 


60 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


to publish), and he warned him that though he would not 

himself do him the least harm, the magistrate would no 

longer suffer him to stay at Strassburg, nor would he him- 

self intercede with the magistrate in Servetus’s behalf. Ser- 

vetus therefore returned to Basel, where he had previously 

made at least a partial living by giving language lessons; 

and he brought with him‘a part of the edition of his book to 

dispose of there or to send on to the book fair at Lyon. 

Here too he found the feeling against him so intense that he 

scarcely knew what to expect next. Accordingly he wrote 
to Gicolampadius offering to leave town if it were thought 

best, but also saying that he was willing to publish a retrac- 

tion of what he had written. Indulgence was given him, 

and the result was that the following spring he brought out 

another and smaller book, entitled Dialogues on the Trinity; 

for the dialogue was at that time a favorite form for “dis= 
cussing subjects of every sort. 

This new work was hastily and carelessly done, but it was 
ostensibly meant to correct the errors and imperfections 
of the former book which, he said, were due partly to his 
own lack of skill, and partly to the carelessness of the 
printer. It was in fact intended only to strengthen his _ 
former arguments by meeting the objections which the re-_ , 
formers had raised against them; and he prided himself that_ 
they had not brought forward a single passage of Scripture 
to disprove what he had said. He omitted, to be sure, some 
of the objectionable things in the first book, and he restated 
his views in language somewhat nearer the teaching of the 
Church ; but so far as his main purpose was concerned, it was 
the same thought as before, only expressed more briefly, and 
in another form. His opponents were in no wise appeased, 
and as he lacked both friends and money, while his ignorance 
of German hindered him in trying to earn his bread, he now 


THE EARLY LIFE OF SERVETUS 61 


left the German world, and for more than twenty years was 
as completely lost to sight as if the earth had opened and 
swallowed him up. What became of him, what an adventur- 
ous and exciting life he led during this long period, and how 
at length he suffered a cruel death for the same teachings 
that obliged him to leave Germany now, must be told in a 
later chapter. 

What now was the teaching of these books, that they 
should have so shocked the reformers? Let us glance at 
them in the briefest and clearest summary of them possible. 
Taking the teaching of the Bible as absolute and _ final au- 
thority, Servetus held that the nature of God can not be 
divided, as by any doctrine of one being in three persons, 
inasmuch as no such doctrine is taught in the Bible, to 
which indeed the very terms Trinity, essence, substance, and 
the like as used in the Creeds are foreign, being mere inven- 
tions of men. The earlier Fathers of the Church also knew 
nothing of them, and they were simply foisted upon the 
Church by the Greeks, who cared more to make men philoso- 
phers than to have them to be true Christians. Equally 
‘unscriptural is the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. 
He pours unmeasured scorn and satire on these doctrines, 
calling them illogical, unreasonable, contradictory, imagi- 
nary; and he ridicules the received doctrine of the Holy 
Spirit. The doctrine of one God in three persons he says 
can not be proved, nor even really imagined; and it raises 
questions which can not be answered, and leads to countless 
heresies. ‘Those that believe in it are fools and blind: they 
become in effect atheists, since they are left with no real 
God at all; while the doctrine of the Trinity really involves 
a Quaternity of four divine beings. It is the insuperable 
obstacle to the conversion of Jews and Mohammedans to 


1See page 32. 


62 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Christianity; ! and such blasphemous teachings ought to be 
utterly uprooted from men’s minds. 

In place of these artificial doctrines of the Creeds, Serve- 
tus draws from the Bible the following simple doctrines, 
and quotes many texts to prove them... Firstly, the man Je-_ 
sus, of whom the Gospels tell, is the Christ, anointed of God. 
Secondly, this man Jesus the Christ is proved by his mirac- 
ulous powers and by the statements of Scripture to be Jit- 
erally the human Son of God, because miraculously begot- 
ten by him. Thirdly, this man is also God, since he is filled 
with the divinity which God had granted him; hence he is_ 
divine not by nature, as the Creeds teach, but solely by God’s 
gift. God himself is incomprehensible, and we can know him 
only through Christ, who is thus all in all to us. The Holy 
Spirit is a power of God,” sent in the form of an angel or_ 
spirit to make us holy. And the only kind of Trinity in 
which we may rightly believe is this: that God reveals him- 
self to man under three different aspects (dispositiones) ; 
for the same divinity which is manifested in the Father is 
also shared with his Son Jesus, and with the Spirit which. 
dwells in us, making our bodies, as St. Paul says, “‘the tem- 
ple of God.” 

Servetus is often reckoned the first and greatest martyr 
of Unitarianism; but though all this was of course a very 
different doctrine from that of the Creeds, it will have been 
seen that Servetus was not a Unitarian in any true sense-- 
He was more like a Sabellian * than anything else, though 
really his system was peculiar to himself. So it has always 
remained, for no school of followers rose after him, as after 
Luther and Calvin, to take up his teachings and carry them 

1See page 53. 


2 Compare Campanus’s teaching, page 48. 
3 See page 15. 


THE EARLY LIFE OF SERVETUS 63 


on. As a matter of fact, he never withdrew from the Cath- 
olic Church, and he says at the end of his second little 
book that he does not wholly agree nor wholly disagree with 
either party. Both Catholic and Protestant seem to him 
to teach partly truth and partly error, while each perceives 
only the other’s errors, but not his own. The matter would 
be easy enough, he says, if one might only speak out freely 
in the Church what he felt was God’s truth now, without re- 
gard to what ancient prophets may have said. 

Yet while Servetus made few converts to his precise sys- 
tem of thought, his two little books, though they probably 
did not circulate in very large numbers,’ spread far and 
wide,” and had an epoch-making influence; for they focused 
men’s attention sharply upon the foundations of the doc- 
trine of the Trinity. The Catholic world paid little atten- 
tion to them, but their influence on the Protestant world 
was at once shown. Instead of converting the reformers to — 
his own views as he had hoped, Servetus simply made them; 
more than ever firmly determined to adhere to the doctrines 
of the Catholic Creeds. Melanchthon, whom we have seen 
_in_his first treatise passing the Trinity by as barely deserv- 
ing mention, and as not necessary to salvation,® in his next 
edition in 1535 treats the doctrines which Servetus had at- 
tacked as absolutely necessary to salvation. Calvin, whom | 
we also saw in his first Catechism slurring over the doctrine 
of the Trinity very lightly,* gives it full treatment in his 
Institutes in 1536, and in 1553 will have Servetus burned at 
the stake for denying it. All the Protestant creeds are 
careful henceforth to be unmistakably orthodox on this 


1 They were put on sale only at Strassburg and Frankfurt. 
2 See page 66. 

_*-3See page 40. 
4See page 40. 


64 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


point. On the other hand, many who read Servetus became 
convinced with him that the Trinity is no doctrine of the 
Bible, and hence ceased to believe it. We shall find numer- 
ous traces of his thought in the course of the following 
chapters. 

Twenty years later Servetus enlarged these little books 
into a much more important one, as we shall see; but al- 
though it brought him to the stake, and thus gave his denial 
of the Trinity great notoriety, all but a very few copies of 
it were destroyed before any one had a chance to read them, 
and it is not known to have had any considerable influence. 
It is through the two little books spoken of in this chapter 
that Servetus started men out on the line of thought which 
led at length to modern Unitarianism. How the influence of 
them spread, undermining belief in the Trinity in various 
countries during the next twenty years, remains to be seen 
in the next two chapters. 


CHAPTER IX 


ANTITRINITARIANISM IN NORTHERN 
ITALY, 1517-1553 


In the two previous chapters we have seen how, during 
the early years of the Reformation, in Protestant Holland, 
Germany, and Switzerland, antitrinitarian thought arose 
only to be at once suppressed. In the present chapter we 
shall have to trace how at the same time the same sort of 
thing went on in Catholic Italy. In that country, where 
men could see the grossest corruptions of the Church at 
close range, and were anxious to see it purified, the ideas of 
the reformers at first spread very widely. But the Church’s 
power to suppress heresy was so great that the Reforma- 
tion never gained much foothold south of the Alps save in 
two regions, the Republic of Venice, and the Grisons in 
southeastern Switzerland; and it is in these two districts 
that we shall find an interesting development toward Uni- 
tarian beliefs. 

The city of Venice, as the commercial metropolis of 
Southern Europe, had a very active commerce with the man- 
ufacturing cities of Protestant Germany. Hence although 
Venice had long had on its books the usual laws against 
heresy, including one for the burning of heretics, the au- 
thorities were loath to enforce them strictly, lest their trade 
with the northern Protestants should be injured. The re- 
sult was that the Reformation teachings which early were 
brought to Venice by German traders rapidly spread in the 

65 


66 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


city, and before long to all the larger towns of the Venetian 
territory. Many Protestant congregations were formed 
and regular meetings were held, though of course with more 
or less secrecy for fear of persecution. 

Along with other Protestants, Anabaptist preachers also 
began early to cross the Alps, probably by way of the Gri- 
sons, and their doctrines too spread with great rapidity. 
By the middle of the sixteenth century over sixty places are 
reported where they had congregations, and there were © 
doubtless many more than these. The Italian Anabaptists 
were better organized than their northern brethren, for be- 
sides regular ministers they had numerous “bishops,” who 
traveled about from church to church, preaching, ordaining 
ministers, keeping up close relations between the various con- 
gregations, and warning them of danger. Although they 
had a few members of wealth, or even of noble birth, they 
were almost entirely of the humble classes, mainly artizans ; 
and of course they had to meet secretly in private houses. 
They manifested the saine liberal tendencies in belief here as 
north of the Alps, and these received a strong additional im- 
pulse from the little books of Servetus on the Trinity, which 
seem to have been widely circulated among them. His influ- 
ence in these parts had by 1539 spread to such an extent 
that reports of it reached Melanchthon, and a letter in his 
name was addressed to the Senate of Venice, urging that 
every effort be used to suppress the abominable doctrine of 
Servetus which had been introduced there; * though the let- 
ter, if ever received, had little effect. 

How thoroughly the orthodox teaching had decayed 


1 Melanchthon afterwards denied responsibility for the letter, though 
approving its sentiments. The material thing is that it gives contem- 
porary evidence of the active currency of Servetus’s views in Venice in 
the late 1530’s. 


ANTITRINITARIANISM IN ITALY 67 


among these Anabaptists of northern Italy is shown by the 
conclusions of a remarkable church Council which they held 
at Venice in 1550—so far as is known the only Council they 
ever held at all. They had a strong church at Vicenza, and 
discussion had arisen there in that or the previous year as 
to whether Christ were God or man; and as there was a 
difference of opinion, it was decided to call together a Coun- 
cil to determine the matter. Messengers were sent to all 
the congregations in northern Italy, inviting each of them 
to send its minister and a lay delegate. The Council met 
at Venice in September, 1550, and was attended by some 
sixty delegates from several of the larger cities and many of 
the smaller towns in Italy, as well as from congregations in 
the Grisons, and from St. Gallen and Basel in Switzerland. 
It is inferred that as many as forty churches must have 
been represented. The delegates were carefully scattered 
about in lodgings so as not to attract attention and invite 
persecution, and their expenses were contributed by the 
larger congregations. The sessions were held in secret, and 
continued almost daily for forty days; they were opened 
with prayer, and the Lord’s Supper was celebrated three 
times. Having taken the teaching of Scripture for their 
sole authority, they at length agreed upon ten points of doc- 
trine. The one of most interest to us here is the very first 
article, which declares that Christ was not God but man, 
born of Joseph and Mary, but endowed with divine powers. 
These conclusions were made binding upon all their congre- 
gations, and were accepted by all but one, which was there- 
fore forced to break off fellowship with the others; and one 
Pietro Manelfi, who had formerly been a Catholic priest, but 
having turned Protestant had for the past year been a trav- 
eling Anabaptist preacher, visiting the scattered congrega- 
tions all over northern and central Italy, was appointed 


68 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


one of two to go about among them and preach the doc- 
trines just adopted.* 

Meanwhile the Protestant doctrines had been making such 
alarming progress in Italy that the means previously used 
by the Catholic Church to suppress heresy were proving in- 
sufficient, so that in 1542 the Italian Inquisition had been 
established for the especial purpose of hunting out heretics 
and bringing them to punishment; and in the Venetian ter- 
ritory many Protestants had already been imprisoned or 
banished, had recanted or fled. Perhaps scenting danger to 
himself, the ex-priest Manelfi, about a year after the Council 
at Venice, returned to the obedience of the Roman Church, 
appeared before the Inquisition, gave a full account of the 
spread of Anabaptism and of the proceedings of the Coun- 
cil, and betrayed the names of all the members whom he 
could recall. Orders were at once issued for their arrest, 
and trials of them went on at Venice during the next year. 
Some recanted, some fled the country and went to Turkey 
where under Mohammedan rule they could find the freedom 
of worship denied them in Christian Italy, some seem to have 
joined a community of Anabaptists in Moravia, many 
doubtless suffered imprisonment, and two or three, returning 
to Italy years afterwards, were then seized and put to death. 
The burning of heretics had ceased to be practised at Ven- 
ice, for the reason given above.” Instead, a method of ex- 

1The above account of the Council at Venice, based upon records of 
the Inquisition brought to light in 1885, represents the truth probably 
underlying the more or less legendary account (first published as late 
as 1678) of certain “conferences” said to have been held at Vicenza in 
1546 and participated in by nearly all the Italians who afterwards pro- 
moted Unitarian thought, and also to have anticipated most of the 
distinctive doctrines of seventeenth century Socinianism. The account 
of these interesting conferences given in all the books hitherto had now 


best be forgotten. 
2 See page 65. 


ANTITRINITARIANISM IN ITALY 69 


ecution was used which would be more secret, and hence 
bring less reproach upon the city. In the darkness of mid- 
night the victim, attended only by a priest to act as confes- 
sor, was taken in a gondola out into the Adriatic, where a 
second gondola was in waiting. A plank was laid between 
the two, and the prisoner, weighted with stone, was placed 
upon it. A signal was given, the gondolas parted, and the 
heretic was no more, 

Thus in the Republic of Venice antitrinitarian beliefs, 
which had come to prevail in a large majority of the Ana- 
baptist congregations, came to a tragic end. Of the most 
numerous congregation, that at Vicenza, at least a few mem- 
bers still remained in 1553, in correspondence with one of 
their faith in Switzerland; but though many others doubt- 
less continued here and there to cherish their faith in pri- 
vate, or to speak of it to trusted friends, they no longer 
dared do anything to win converts to it, and we hear no 
more of them, there or elsewhere. We noted, however, that 
some of the delegates to the Council at Venice came from 
Anabaptist congregations in the Grisons, and we must next 
turn thither to trace another chapter of struggle and 
persecution. 


CHAPTER X 


ANTITRINITARIANISM IN THE GRISONS, 
1542-1579 


The antitrinitarian movement which in the last chapter 
we followed among the Anabaptists of northern Italy was, 
as was noted, with few exceptions a movement among the 
poor and humble. Its main concern was with practical re- 
forms of the Christian religion, considered as a means of 
bringing men nearer to God. We have now to turn to a 
quite different sort of movement, which took its rise among 
some of the most highly cultivated minds in Italy, and was 
mainly concerned with the reform of the Christian doctrines. 
It was the latter of these two antitrinitarian tendencies 
that was destined in the next generation to take root among 
the liberal Protestants of Poland, and to determine the pre- 
vailing character of the Unitarian movement for nearly 
three centuries. 

The spirit of free inquiry which began with Italian Hu- 
manism in the generation before the Reformation had no 
little influence on some of the finest spirits in the Catholic 
Church, able scholars, eloquent preachers, and noble ladies; 
and through these it soon began widely to affect the edu- 
cated middle classes, especially in the cities. This move- 
ment, which was much influenced by the writings of the Ger- 
man reformers, aimed at reform from within the Church, 
and sought to lead men to cultivate a simple, devout form 
of Christianity, which greatly valued religion as a personal 


experience, but laid little emphasis upon creeds or doctrines. 
70 


ANTITRINITARIANISM IN THE GRISONS 71 


This first step toward a more liberal form of faith within 
the bosom of the Catholic Church can best be followed by 
our now speaking of several persons active in this movement, 
who were of importance in the religious history of the time. 

Juan de Valdez was a Spanish nobleman, born about 1500, 
who had to flee from the Spanish Inquisition and in 1530 
came to Italy to live. He was a gentleman of rare accom- 
plishments and great social charm, and his home at Naples 
became the resort of noble ladies and gentlemen, distin: 
guished scholars, and famous preachers of the religious or- 
ders. He had accepted the views of Luther, and in meetings 
which he used to hold at his house at Naples on Sundays for 
religious conversation he introduced them to his guests. 
Thus, and through books of his which are still prized as devo- 
tional classics, he exerted a wide influence in favor of spirit- 
ual and undogmatic religion. Fortunately for himself he 
died, universally lamented, in 1541, the year before the 
founding of the Italian Inquisition, which, had he lived much 
longer, would undoubtedly have called him to account. For 
while it is not correct to call him an Antitrinitarian, as has 
often been done, yet he carefully avoids the doctrine of the 
Trinity in his writings; and the tendency of his influence may 
be judged from the fact that several of those who fell under 
it became decidedly heretical on this point, as we shall see in 
this and later chapters. 

Even more famous than Valdez, and of wider influence, 
was Bernardino Ochino. He was born at Siena in 1487, was 
of humble parentage and limited education, though of great 
natural talents, and was destined to be esteemed incom- 
parably the best preacher in Italy. Seeking to save his soul. 
by a more holy life, he entered the order of St. Francis in 
young manhood, and after twenty years becoming dissatisfied 
with the laxity of this he joined the yet stricter order of 


(2 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Capuchin Friars, in which he received the singular honor of 
being twice chosen Vicar-General. ‘The preaching of the 
Catholic Church was at that time done exclusively by the 
friars; and Ochino, now become celebrated for his eloquent 
preaching, drew immense crowds to hear his Lenten sermons 
at Venice and Naples, and was everywhere received with the 
greatest distinction, while at the same time revered almost 
as a saint for his self-denying and holy life. While thus 
preaching at Naples he was drawn within the circle of Val- 
dez’s influence, and became deeply interested in the reforma- 
tion of the Church, and in a religion which should lay much 
stress upon a devout and holy life, but little upon the doc- 
trines of the Creeds. He was in a fair way, through his 
great influence over the people, to become the Luther of 
Italy, when the Inquisition resented his public criticism of 
its intolerant spirit, and summoned him to appear before it 
in Rome. Having received an intimation that his death was 
already determined upon, he fled from Italy in 1542 by way 
of the Grisons, and joined the Protestants beyond the Alps. 
In a later chapter we shall follow his career there, where 
late in life he was suspected of having become an Antitrini- 
tarian. Meanwhile he left behind.him in Italy an influence 
on many who soon had to flee lke himself, of whom several 
are counted among the early Antitrinitarians. 

A more tragic fate befell Aonio Paleario, who was born 
about 1500, embraced the scholar’s life, and became a pro- 
fessor at several of the Italian universities. He too became 
greatly interested in the reform of religion in much the same 
way as Valdez and Ochino, and though several times threat- 
ened with prosecution for heresy, he was defended by such 
powerful friends that he escaped. At length, however, the 
Inquisition laid its relentless hands upon him, and after 


ANTITRINITARIANISM IN THE GRISONS 73 


three years’ imprisonment at an advanced old age, he was 
hanged, and his body burned, in 1570. 

The cases of these three distinguished Italian Catholics 
who wished to reform the religion of their Church will serve 
to illustrate how in Italy the ground was being mellowed to 
receive the seeds of more radical thought. For if the first 
article of the Creeds could be passed over by these leaders 
as not vitally important to Christianity, the next step would 
be yet more easy: to reject it outright as not scriptural, or 
not reasonable, and hence as not true. This next step was 
soon taken, as we shall see, though not in Italy. For begin- 
ning with 1542 the Inquisition became ever more active in 
scenting out Protestant heresy and persecuting heretics. 
Whenever one of any importance was discovered, and was 
unwilling to renounce his faith, he had to flee the country in 
haste, as Ochino had done, lest he perish as Paleario did. 
So that during the next generation large numbers of Italian 
refugees emigrated to Switzerland or beyond, where they 
might both preserve their lives and keep their religious faith. 

The nearest and most convenient place of refuge, to which 
most of them first fled, was the Grisons, which lay safely 
beyond the reach of the Inquisition, yet partly on the Ital- 
ian side of the Alps, with the climate which Italians loved, 
and a Janguage which they could understand. The Grisons 
at the time of the Reformation were a loose confederation, 
in the extreme southeast of Switzerland, of three leagues 
which had asserted their independence of other powers and 
in 1471 had joined together in a highly democratic republic, 
and had early in the sixteenth century come to include ad- 
joining districts in Italy, to which in our time they again 
belong. It is a country of varied and beautiful scenery ly- 
ing both north and south of the Alps, with narrow and se- 


74 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


cluded Alpine valleys and lofty snow-peaks; and its valleys, 
passes, and towns are well known to travelers. 

Numerous heretics in these remote valleys are said to 
have escaped the vigilance of the Church all through the 
Middle Ages; and the Reformation spread so rapidly here 
that in 1526 the Diet of Ilanz decreed equal religious free- 
dom to Protestants and Catholics, and recognized the Scrip- 
tures as the only authority in religion, though at the same 
time it outlawed the Anabaptists, and ordained that heretics 
should be punished by banishment. The Grisons were thus 
at this time more advanced in religious toleration than any 
other country in Christian Europe. 

Anabaptists expelled from Ziirich had come here almost 
as soon as the Reformation itself, and the teachings of 
Denck spread with the rest, soon followed by those of Ser- 
vetus; but the most active influences came from the Italian 
refugees. By 1550 more than two hundred of them, and 
by 1559 more than eight hundred, had passed this way, the 
number steadily rising as the Inquisition grew more severe. 
Their preachers, most of them formerly preachers of the 
religious orders who had been influenced by the teachings of 
Luther, were eagerly welcomed for the aid they could give 
in spreading the Reformation among the Italian popula- 
tion; and in an atmosphere of comparative freedom their re- 
ligious thought developed so rapidly, that it was not long 
before some of them came quite to disbelieve doctrines rane 
hitherto they had only ignored. 

The first of these Italians to attract attention by his 
unorthodox teaching in the Grisons was an ex-monk, Fran- 
cesco of Calabria, who had been one of the followers of Val- 
dez, and who maintained that he was a disciple of Ochino. 
He was pastor of a church in the Lower Engadine where, 
along with certain Anabaptist doctrines and the denial of 


ANTITRINITARIANISM IN THE GRISONS 75 


eternal punishment, he seemed to teach that Christ was in- 
ferior to God. The orthodox therefore complained of him, 
and although he was strongly supported by his own parish, 
he was convicted of heresy and banished from the country in 
1544. Another ex-monk and disciple of Ochino, Girolamo 
Marliano, pastor of the neighboring church of Lavin, besides 
holding Anabaptist views also taught that the doctrine of 
the Trinity, as commonly held, is contradictory and absurd. 
He was therefore dismissed by his church, and later went to 
Basel. 

A bolder step was taken by a mysterious traveling 
preacher who is known to us only by the name of Tiziano, 
and of whose origin and fate no memory survives. He had 
been in some cardinal’s court at Rome, had accepted the 
teachings of Luther, and had later become an Anabaptist. 
It was he that converted and re-baptized the priest Manelfi 
at Florence in 1548 or 1549, after which they together vis- 
ited the brethren at Vicenza; and at the Anabaptist Council] 
at Venice in 1550 he appeared as a delegate from some con- 
gregation in the Grisons, whither he had evidently had to 
flee from Italy. Besides his entertaining the usual Anabap- 
tist views, his especial offense was that he considered Christ 
only an ordinary man, filled with the divine Spirit, but not 
miraculously born. These views he preached at many places 
in the Grisons, winning numerous followers. But the ortho- 
dox at length became so enraged against him that he was in 
imminent danger of being put to death, had not milder coun- 
sels prevailed. He was arrested, and after long refusal was 
finally brought by threats of death to sign a statement 
which had been prepared for him, explicitly renouncing his 
errors. His influence over his followers having thus been 
destroyed, he was flogged through the streets, and forever 
banished from the country in 1554, 


76 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


But the widest and deepest influence is generally ascribed 
to one Camillo. He was a Sicilian scholar, who had been 
with Valdez at Naples; and after embracing the doctrines 
of the Reformation he assumed the name by which he is best 
known, Renato, by which he signified his feeling that he had 
been “born again.” <A man of talents and fine education, he 
had a singular power of deeply influencing those whom he 
attracted to him. He was by nature serious, reserved, and 
shy; and his opponents regarded him as crafty and insidi- 
ous in spreading his views. To escape the danger that 
threatened all Protestants, he fled from Italy in 1542 and 
came to the Valtellina, where he supported himself as tutor 
to the sons of prominent families. But although he was a 
teacher by occupation, his deepest interest was in questions 
of theology, which he seems to have taken every opportunity 
to discuss with his pupils and trusted friends. 

Renato had imbibed Anabaptist views, and was one of the 
earliest Italian Anabaptists to exert much influence; he had 
also read Servetus. It may well have been he that con- 
verted Tiziano. Quite independently of the Creeds he had 
developed a simple system of belief which shows that he was 
much of a mystic. But though he was not orthodox as to 
the atonement, and held that Christ inherited a sinful na- 
ture so that he at least could have sinned, yet he never let 
it be known, unless perhaps to his intimate friends, whether 
he believed in the doctrine of the Trinity or not. It is very 
noteworthy, however, that several of the most important 
of those that later spread antitrinitarian views north of the 
Alps had been in Renato’s circle in the Grisons; and his sys- 
tem of belief in several respects so closely resembles that 
afterwards taught by Socinians (Unitarians) in Poland, that 
it is hard not to trace these various results to his quiet 
influence as their source. 


ANTITRINITARIANISM IN THE GRISONS ‘%7 


Renato left the Valtellina in 1545 for Chiavenna, the cen- 
ter of the Reformation in the Italian Grisons, where he 
soon acquired much influence, and where refugees fleeing 
into Switzerland were likely, if they remained long, to meet 
him and learn his views. Here he fell into a long and bitter 
controversy upon the Lord’s Supper (a subject very hotly 
debated among the early reformers), with the pastor of the 
Chiavenna church, in which he had won a large number of 
sympathizers. The end of the matter was that, having re- 
fused to refrain from spreading his views, he was excommun- 
icated in 1550, and returned to the Valtellina. From now 
on we lose track of him, save that four years later he sent 
from here to Calvin an eloquent Latin poem of protest at 
the burning of Servetus, and in favor of religious toleration, 
and that he was yet living, though blind, until after 1560. 
He still kept up relations with his friends through corre- 
spondence, and his influence long persisted. 

Among those to take Renato’s part and receive his influ- 
ence was Francesco Stancaro, formerly a monk, and very 
famous as a Hebrew scholar. After turning Protestant he 
fled to the Grisons, whence he soon went on to Switzerland. 
Through his unorthodox teaching as to the Atonement he 
later did much, as we shall see, to prepare the way for Uni- 
tarianism in Poland and Transylvania. 

The narrow mountain valleys of the Grisons were no place 
for men whose life had been spent in the society of large 
towns and the world of scholars. Most of the leaders there- 
fore soon went on to the stirring centers of Geneva, Ziirich, 
Basel, or Strassburg, where we shall hear more of some of 
them in connection with our history. Alone of those whom 
we have named, Renato remained behind; and even after we 
cease to hear of him directly the leaven of his teaching con- 
tinued to work. But in 1570 the Diet voted to banish all 


78 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Anabaptists and Arians; and when two notorious Antitrini- 
tarians from Geneva returned in 1579 for a visit to the 
Grisons, they were ordered to leave the country. 

Thus the antitrinitarian movement disappeared also from 
the Grisons, although it is most interesting to discover not 
only that nine of the old Protestant churches of that dis- 
trict still exist, with a numerous membership, but that more 
than half their pastors are decidedly liberal, preaching a 
Christianity which no longer insists upon creeds or believes 
in miracles. The teachings that were nourished there in the 
time of which we have spoken, however, were not destroyed 
by the persecution they received, but simply transplanted 
beyond the Alps. For it was as though the Grisons had 
been a hot-bed for heresy, in which the seed-thoughts 
planted in the minds of the Italian refugees might develop, 
protected from the harsh winds of persecution, until they 
were strong enough to be transplanted into the more vigor- 
ous atmosphere of northern Europe, where they were later 
to bear fruit. Under this figure, the tending and cultivat- 
ing of the young plants until they were well rooted was 
largely the quiet work of Camillo Renato. Meantime the 
stage had been setting for another and more dramatic scene 
at Geneva, and we must therefore return to follow the later 
history and the tragic fate of Servetus. 


CHAPTER XI 
SERVETUS IN FRANCE, 1532-1553 


Soon after the publication of his Dialogues on the T'rin- 
aty in 1532, Servetus finding himself friendless, penniless, 
and in imminent danger of trial for heresy, left Basel and 
was no more heard of for twenty-one years. As Germany 
and Switzerland had grown too hot to hold him he next went 
to France, and in order the better to conceal himself he 
dropped his name of Servetus and adopted that of his early 
home, and thus became Michel de Villeneuve (Michael Villa- 
novanus). We first find him in Paris, perhaps disheartened 
for a time over his failure as a religious reformer, and 
studying mathematics at the University for some two years, 
while he became so proficient that presently he was giving 
university lectures on the subject. In this period he ‘met 
the young Calvin, who was now becoming prominent in the 


Reformation, and was later to bring him to the stake. He | 
challenged Calvin to a public debate on religious subjects, | 
and the meeting was arranged for; but in the end Servetus | 


failed to appear—why, we do not know, though he may well - 


have shrunk from the danger involved in a city where every 
day heretics were being burned at the stake. 

Want of money now forced him to interrupt his studies, 
and he therefore went to Lyon (Lyons), which ranked next 
to Paris as a publishing center, and here for over two years 
he was employed by a famous publishing house as corrector 


of proof, which was then a common occupation for scholars. 
79 


Beene ve 


80 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


In this capacity Servetus served as editor of a new edition 
of Ptolemy’s celebrated Geography, which the recent ex- 
plorations in the New World had made necessary. He en- 
riched this work by many pungent notes, and one of these, 
which spoke of Palestine as a very poor country for a 
‘promised land,” afterwards brought him into trouble as a 
defamer of Moses. His work on the proof of several medi- 
cal works, however, opened to him a new field of interest, 
and brought him influential acquaintances in the medical 
world, so that having replenished his purse he returned to 
Paris and became a student of medicine. ar 
Servetus remained in Paris about four years, studying 
under the most distinguished physicians and anatomists of 
the age. He won the praise of one of his masters as al- 
most unrivalled in his knowledge of medicine, wrote a little 
book on digestion which was so popular that it ran through 
five editions in France and Italy, and at length he was grad- 
uated as Doctor of Medicine.* In the course of his studies 
he made a discovery which renders him forever distinguished 
in the history of physiology. He discovered that it is 
through the lungs that the blood passes from the right to the_ 
left side of the heart. Yet he evidently did not appreciate 
the importance of the discovery, or else was pre-occupied 
with another theme, for he never referred to it at all except 
to use it as an incidental illustration in a theological work 
not published until fifteen years later; and since this work 
(as we shall see) never got into circulation, his great dis- 
covery remained buried and unknown for a century and a 
half, until long after Harvey and others had made the dis- 
covery again. At the solicitation of his friends Servetus 
gave public lectures at the University on geography and 
astrology, which were attended by large numbers. Astrol- 
i Though probably elsewhere than at Paris. 


SERVETUS IN FRANCE 81 


ogy was still in good repute, and the line was not sharply 
drawn between that and meteorology. Theologians like 
Melanchthon believed in it and practiced it, and kings and 
princes had their court astrologers whom they consulted be- 
fore any important undertaking. In his lectures~and-in-a 
published pamyphlet on the subject, Servetus took occasion 
to make disrespectful remarks about the medical scholars of 
the time, charging them with ignorance for neglecting this 
important subject, and calling them a plague of the world. 
His colleagues in the faculty were furious, and had him 
haled before the Inquisitor on a charge of heresy. When 
he was acquitted of this, they prosecuted him before the Su- 
preme Court for advocating the practice of divination, which 
was forbidden on pain of death by fire. The Court ordered 
Servetus to withdraw his pamphlet, to pay his colleagues 
more respect, and to cease lecturing on the subject. But 
he had now had enough of academic life, and so he left Paris 
and entered upon the practice of medicine. 

There are rumors of his having wandered rather widely 
for a time, but at length he settled down at Charlieu, near 
Lyon, and.for_a year _or so practiced his profession with 
such success as to arouse the envy of his competitors, who 
caused him to be assaulted one dark night as_he went to 
visit a patient. He was now invited, however, by the Arch- 
bishop of Vienne, who had known him in Paris, to become 
his private physician,and-to occupy a dwelling in his own 
palace, and thus about 1540 he entered upon ten or twelve 
peaceful and happy years,the longest quiet period of his 
adventurous and troubled life, during which he acquired 
fame and fortune as a physician, and at the same time pur- 
sued the studies he loved. For in this period, along with 
his duties to the sick, to whom he showed great devotion dur- 
ing the plague of 1542, he continued to correct proof for 


82 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


various works, and brought out a new edition of Ptolemy in 
which he softened down some of the notes that heid given 
offense before, but above all edited a celebrated edition of 
the Bible. A Dominican monk, Sante Pagnino, ‘had a few 
years before made a new translation of the Bible into Latin, 
which was highly esteemed for its excellence; and as he had 
now died, the publisher employed Servetus to edit a new edi- 
tion, and to supply it with a preface and notes. In doing 
this he laid down some startling new pr) ‘aciples of interpret-_ 
ing Scripture, and in applying. them to the Psalms and 
Prophets he showed that many passages supposed to be pre- 
dictions of Christ really refer in the first instance to the 
writer’s own time though in their full meaning they may also 
look forward to Christ. He thus anticipated the modern 
higher criticism of the Old Testament by two hundred and 
fifty years; but at the time these notes gave great offense, 
and the Catholics put them on their Index of forbidden 
books, while Calvin later made them the basis for a part of 
the charges which brought Servetus to his death. ay 

It was perhaps this new study of the Bible that revived 
his old interest in theology, and the quiet and leisure of 
his life at Vienne now enabled him again to cultivate it. 
Enthusiastic dreamer that he was, he felt that the whole 
world might still be won to that view of Christianity which 
seemed to him so much more simple and scriptural than the 
one current in the churches; and though fifteen years ago he 
had failed with the Swiss and German reformers, Calvin had 
now come to the fore in Geneva, and was the most influential 
figure in the Protestant world. Servetus became obsessed 
with the idea that he might convert Calvin; and so, finding a 
go-between in one Frellon, a publisher of Lyon for whom Ser- 
vetus had done literary work and who knew them both, he 
opened correspondence by asking Calvin three questions as 


SERVETUS IN FRANCE 83 


to Jesus the Son of God, the kingdom of Christ and regener- 
ation, and baptism. The correspondence began on the 
plane of courtesy, but it soon degenerated into coarse abuse 
and invective. Servetus was writing with the purpose of 
showing Calvin his errors, and he begged him to give up as 
unscriptural his belief in that great and impossible monster 
of three beings in one, and talked down to him as to an in- 
ferior. Calvin had now so long been practically dictator at 
Geneva that he had come to expect respectful deference 
from all who approached him, and although always ready to 
teach was little inclined to be taught. His patience was 
soon at an end; and as he found Servetus greatly lacking 
in humility, after a few letters he broke off the correspond- 
ence, and in place of writing more he sent Servetus a copy 
of his Instétutes to which he referred him asa true state- 
ment of the Christian faith. Servetus later returned_this 
with offensive criticisms scribbled all over the margins. 
Calvin took this as a personal insult. “There is not a 
page,” he said, “that he has left free from his vomit.” Ser- 
vetus continued for two years to pursue Calvin with letters, 
to the number of thirty, and did not scruple to call him a 
reprobate, a blasphemer, a Jew, a thief, and_a robber... Cal- 
vin was equal to the occasion, and referred to Servetus’s let- 
ters as the braying of an ass. Nothing daunted, Servetus 
then sent Calvin the manuscript of a book he had lately 
written, seeking thus again to draw him into argument over 
the views it expressed. Calvin read the manuscript, but re- 
fused to answer it, and paid no heed to Servetus’s repeated 
requests for its return. Still hoping to convert Calvin, 
Servetus next offered to go to Geneva and discuss the ques- 
tions with him in person, if only assured of safe conduct; 
but Calyin would give no pledge: instead he wrote to his 
friend Farel, pastor at Neuchatel, that if Servetus came, 


84 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


and his own influence amounted to anything, he would never 
allow him to get away alive. Having failed with Calvin, 
Servetus next tried to draw out his fellow reformers, 
Poupin, pastor at Geneva, and Viret, pastor at Lausanne. 
To the former he wrote, “In place of one God you have a 
three-headed Cerberus, in place of faith you have a fatal 
dream, and good deeds you call worthless pictures”; and 
then, as if with a premonition of his fate, he added, “That 
I must die for this cause I know full well, but for all that I 
have good courage, if only I may become a disciple like 
the Master.” 

Having now failed in all quarters to make any impression, 
Servetus again felt driven to publish his views for wide read- 
ing, and he was the more strongly impelled to do) this be- 
cause he was convinced by a passage of Scripture that the 
kingdom of Antichrist (the Papacy) was to come to an 
end in 1585, and he had the conviction that he himself was ~ 
the Michael who it was foretold was to put the great dragon 
under his feet. A Basel printer friend of his to whom Ser- 
vetus offered the manuscript dared not print it, but at 
length after much difficulty, and by paying a large bonus, 
he got it printed in great secrecy in a vacant house in 
Vienne, of course with no indication of place, printer, or 
author ; though he could not resist the temptation to put his 
own initials at the end, and to insert his name in several 
places in the text. This work was entitled The Restoration 
of Christianity (Christianismi Restitutio). About half of 
it consisted of a recast of Servetus’s two earlier books 
on the Trinity, to which he now added his thirty letters 
to Calvin, and an address to Melanchthon, making in all a 
book of over 700 pages. It contains Servetus’s plan for a 
more thorough and complete reformation of Christianity 

1 Revelation 12: 7-10, 


SERVETUS IN FRANCE 85 


than the Protestant reformers had attempted. Though its 
thought is more developed, it does not essentially differ from 
the earlier works; but it is harsher than before, and while 
holding a position something between Catholics and Prot- 
estants it is especially bitter toward the reformers, while it 
violently attacks the traditional doctrine of the Trinity 
with every weapon to be drawn from reason, history, or 
Scripture. It is in this book that Servetus describes the 
circulation of the blood referred to above. 

This work was printed early in 1558, a thousand copies 
of it. They were sent in bales to Lyon, where they were 
to be held until they could be put on sale at the Easter fairs 
there and at Frankfurt, the great book markets of northern 
Europe. Frellon, probably not foreseeing the consequences 
of his act, at once sent a copy to Calvin, who could easily 
see from a comparison of it with the manuscript which Ser- 
vetus had sent him, that both were from the same author. 
It would never do to let such heresy be sown over Europe, 
to say nothing of the disrespect shown himself in the letters 
the book contained; and Calvin was quick to act. Now it 
happened that he had a neighbor and confidential friend, one 
Guillaume Trie, a Protestant refugee from Lyon, who was 
still in correspondene with a Catholic relative there. To 
him Calvin related what he knew of this new book and its 
author. Trie at once wrote to his Catholic relative (it is 
hard not to believe that this was done with Calvin’s knowl- 
edge and approval, for he had himself previously denounced 
Servetus to the Archbishop of Lyon as a heretic), saying to 
him that there was a heretic in his vicinity who deserved to 
be burned alive for blaspheming the Trinity and uttering 
other dreadful heresies ; that his name was Michael Servetus, 
though he now called himself Villeneuve; and that he was 
living at Vienne as a physician. To clinch the matter he 


86 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


inclosed the first four sheets of the Restitutio. It came out 
as Trie (and Calvin) desired. The letter soon reached the 
hands of the Inquisitor. Steps were cautiously taken, Ser- 
vetus was summoned before the authorities and questioned, 
and his lodgings were searched. The printers were likewise 
examined; but no evidence could be found, and the accused 
were all discharged. 

Trie was then written to for further proof of what he had 
charged, and he produced it nothing loath, Calvin assisting. 
He forwarded a number of letters which Servetus had writ- 
ten to Calvin and marked confidential, and the copy of the 
Institutes with Servetus’s notes on the margin, and later on 
also the manuscript book which Servetus had sent Calvin 
some years before. The judges examined these, found the 
evidence convincing, and caused Servetus to be arrested and 
brought before them. After artfully leading him on through 
questions as to his former life and writings and meeting with 
some evasion, the judges at length laid before him the let- 
ters written in his own hand which he could not well deny, 
but signed Servetus, thus identifying the Dr. Michel de Ville- 
neuve before them with the notorious heretic Michael Ser- 
vetus. Realizing that he was cornered, and grasping at any 
straw that might save him from death, he made an artful 
equivocation, which, however, did not deceive his judges. 
Before the examination was concluded the court adjourned 
for the night. That evening Servetus sent his servant from 
the prison to collect a large sum of money owing to him, 
and the next morning at daybreak he made his escape from 
prison—as was generally believed, not without connivance 
on the part of influential friends. When his escape was dis- 
covered, he was already well out of reach. The trial went 
on without him, and dragged on for ten weeks. The print- 
ers were discovered, and bales containing 500 copies of the 


SERVETUS IN FRANCE 87 


book were found at Lyon.t Servetus was found guilty of 
heresy and various related crimes, and was condemned to be 
burned to death by a slow fire, along with his books. 

It was not the custom in those times to put off the execu- 
tion of a capital sentence simply because the condemned 
could not be found. An effigy of Servetus was therefore 
made that very day, and after being first duly hanged, was 
burned, together with his books, in the public square, 
whereat perhaps every one was well enough satisfied save the 
Inquisitor—and Calvin. The trial had been by the civil 
court. The ecclesiastical court now proceeded to do its 
duty in trying Servetus on its own account. Two days be- 
fore Christmas it too found him guilty of heresy, and again 
condemned him to be burned at the stake. But it was too 
late. Servetus had already met his fiery fate at Geneva 
two months before. How he came thither will be told in the 
next chapter. 


1The rest of the edition, save a few copies retained by the prosecu- 
tion, had been sent to Frankfurt, where they were later destroyed at 
Calvin’s instance. The original is therefore one of the rarest books in 
the world, and only three copies are extant, in libraries at Vienna, 


Paris, and Edinburgh. A page-for-page reprint is also very rare. 








CHAPTER XII 


THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF SERVETUS 
AT GENEVA, 1553 


Although escaped from his imprisonment at Vienne, Ser- 
vetus found the world by no means a place in which he 
might feel free to go or be wherever he would. He dared 
not stay in France for fear of recapture. It was hardly 
more safe for him to return to the Rhine country whence he 
had fled years before, and where he might still be recog- 
nized. Still less could he think of returning to his native 
land in fanatical Spain. He therefore determined to go to 
Naples in order to practice his profession among his coun- 
trymen, of whom many had fled thither for the sake of en- 
joying greater religious liberty. He thought at first of 
crossing the Pyrenees and going through Spain, but danger 
of arrest on the border deterred him, and after wandering 
like a hunted thing for four months he at length turned to 
the route through Switzerland into northern Italy as the 
safest one for him. Fortunately for him, he was well pro- 
vided with money. 

Thus it was that Servetus at length arrived at an inn in 
Geneva one evening about the middle of August, intending 
as soon as possible to get a boat up the lake on his way 
to Ziirich and Italy. He had meant to keep out of sight 
as much as possible, hoping thus to escape discovery; but 
unhappily for him the next day was Sunday, when the laws 


required every one to attend church, and he may indeed even 
88 


THE TRIAL OF SERVETUS 89 


have been curious to hear Calvin preach. Here he was rec- 
ognized before ever the sermon began. Calvin felt that 
Servetus had long deserved death as a blasphemer and 
heretic, and he may have suspected that he had come in or- 
der to spread his heresies in Geneva itself, and thus to en- 
danger the success of the Reformation there. He was the 
more keenly alive to this danger since he had but lately had 
a letter telling him how rapidly and widely the diabolical 
teachings of Servetus had spread in the cities of northern 
Italy. He therefore felt bound to do all in his power to 
rid the world of Servetus, now that the Inquisition at Vienne 
had failed of doing so, and he at once caused him to be ar- 
rested and thrown into prison. ‘The law required that the 
accuser in such a case should be imprisoned with the accused 
until the charges were established, and since this would be 
inconvenient for himself Calvin got a student named Nicolas 
de la Fontaine, who was living in his household as his secre- 
tary, to enter the prison in his stead as the accuser. 
Before proceeding to speak of the long trial that fol- 
lowed, it will be necessary for a clear understanding of it 
to say something of Calvin himself, and of conditions in 
Geneva at this time. John Calvin had been born in 1509, 
two years before Servetus, at Noyon in Picardie, and had 
been well educated and designed for the priesthood. Later - 
falling out with the Church, he had, like Servetus, studied 
law; and he was becoming converted to the views of the 
Reformation at the very time when Servetus was publish- 
ing his first books against the Trinity. In 1536 he had 
published his Institutes of the Christian Religion, a clear, 
logical, and able presentation of the Protestant system of 
belief, much the strongest work yet written in defense of 
the Protestant cause; and this had at once caused him to be 
recognized as the intellectual leader of the Reformed reli- 


90 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


gion outside Germany. Obliged to flee from France, where 
no Protestant’s life was quite safe, he had happened to come 
to Geneva at the very moment when the cause of the Refor- 
mation, which had been adopted earlier that year, hung 
trembling in the balance for want of a powerful leader. 
Quite against his inclination he was pressed into service 
there, and although never in name more than one of the city 
pastors and a preacher and teacher of theology, he soon 
became in fact, and by the force of his character, practi- 
cally dictator. 

Geneva in 1553 was a cosmopolitan little city of about 
20,000 inhabitants. Before the Reformation it had been 
gay and dissolute, and even now its people were much given 
to pleasure, and none too strict in their morals. Calvin 
determined to change all this, and to make Geneva a model 
for the Protestant world, with its life strictly conformed to 
the Word of God. He soon brought order out of chaos, 
reformed the code of laws, and aimed by strict laws strictly 
enforced, even as to the small details of private life, to root 
out vice and make religion and good morals universal among 
the inhabitants. The Genevese, however, resenting that a 
mere foreigner should thus interfere with their old habits 
and customs, rose in indignant opposition, and after two 
years drove Calvin and his fellow reformer, Farel, into ex- 
ile, forbidding them ever to return. Thereupon things 
drifted from bad to worse until after three years it was nec- 
essary to recall Calvin. He returned in 1541 to remain at 
Geneva for the rest of his life, ruling with a more absolute 
hand than ever, though not without great and persistent op- 
position. The Libertines (as the strong party opposed to 
Calvin came at a later time to be called) found him in the 
way of their political ambitions, and determined if possible 
to destroy his power. After he had caused one of their 


THE TRIAL OF SERVETUS 91 


number to be beheaded in 1547 they became doubly infuri- 
ated against him. They insulted him in every way: named 
their dogs Calvin, and called him Cain. The struggle was 
hard and hot, and the outcome of it was long uncertain. 
After gaining some temporary victories over his opponents, 
Calvin had had to face renewed opposition, and in the sum- 
mer of 1553 he seemed to be all but defeated. This was the 
critical state of things when Servetus arrived upon the scene, 
with the Libertines ready, if opportunity offered, to take 
any advantage of his presence in order further to thwart 
Calvin’s influence. The trial of Servetus was thus not 
merely a trial of an individual for heresy, but one in which 
political and personal interests were also deeply involved; 
and on its outcome seemed to depend not simply the life of 
the accused, but also the fate of the Reformation in Geneva, 
and perhaps even in all Switzerland and France. 

On the day after his arrest Servetus was brought for pre- 
liminary examination before the proper authority, to whom 
de la Fontaine, his formal accuser, presented a complaint 
against Servetus, drawn up by Calvin under thirty-eight ar- 
ticles. These were based mainly on the Restitutto, and 
after charging that some twenty-four years ago Servetus 
had begun to trouble the churches with his heresies, and had 
since then continued his mischief by his notes on the Bible 
and on Ptolemy, and by a recent book full of infinite blas- 
phemies, and that he was an escaped prisoner from Vienne; 
they went on to charge him with destroying the very foun- 
dations of Christianity by various heresies as to the Trinity, 
the person of Christ, the immortality of the soul, and infant 
baptism; and finally led up to the climax by charging that 
jhe had defamed Calvin by heaping all possible blasphemies 
upon him, and had concealed his scandalous views from the 
printer at Vienne. Some of these charges Servetus at once 


92 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


admitted as true, some he denied as false, and some he ex- 
plained away; adding, however, that if in anything he had 
fallen into error he was willing to stand corrected. But on 
the whole the charges were held to be well taken, and it was 
ordered that he be held for trial. 

On the following day trial was begun before the. Little 
ney. Servetus Rates duly sworn was reéxamined on the 
charges made the previous day. He now made his admis- 
sions and denials rather more distinct than before, but took 
a fling at Calvin by saying that it was no fault of his that 
he had not been burned alive at Vienne, and that he was 
ready before a full congregation to give Calvin the reasons 
and scripture proofs for his teachings. A little later one 
of Calvin’s most prominent supporters entered the case as 
counsel for the prosecution, while on the other hand one of 
his most active political opponents took a hand in defense 
of Servetus. This threatened to turn the case into a phase 
of the political struggle to overthrow Calvin, so that he now 
resolved to take no chances, but threw off the mask and 
came into court himself as openly the accuser, and assisted 
in the prosecution of the case. In the further examination 
of Servetus little new evidence was brought out, save that 
Servetus had applied to those that believed in the orthodox 
doctrine of the Trinity the term Trinitarians,’ at which_ 
Calvin took the greatest offense. The prosecution now 


1 The term Trinitarian was in the sixteenth century applied to heretics 
holding certain incorrect views as to the Trinity (it was often applied, 
curiously enough, by Catholic writers, to Unitarians), hence Calvin’s 
objection to it. But as is wont to happen with names applied to op- 
ponents, this one stuck and later came into general use to desig- 
nate any believer in the Trinity. Servetus insisted in his trial that he _ 
himself believed in the true Trinity of the early Fathers, though ni not in __ 
the corrupted doctrine of later times. 


THE TRIAL OF SERVETUS — 93 


maintained that the charges against Servetus had been suf- 
ficiently proved to show him a criminal, and asked that de la 
Fontaine be discharged from his imprisonment as accuser, 
and this was granted. The Attorney-General therefore 
took charge of the prosecution in the name of the State, 
and opened a new stage of the trial by bringing in an en- 
tirely new indictment; while Calvin soon retired again into 
the background, though from the pulpit he appealed to 
public feeling by making bitter attacks against Servetus. 
Meanwhile it had been voted to request the authorities at 
Vienne to send a copy of the evidence they had against 
Servetus, and then to lay the case before the other churches 
of Switzerland for their information. 

Now that the regular state trial was about to commence, 
Servetus came before the court with a motion that he be 
discharged. His grounds were that it was not the custom 
‘of the Apostles nor of the first Christian Emperors’ to treat 
heretics as guilty of capital crime, but only to excommun- 
icate or at the most banish them; that he had committed no — 
crime either in their territory or elsewhere; that the _ques- 
tions he had treated were only for scholars, and he had 
never spoken of them to others; that as for the Anabaptists, 
with whom they had sought to identify him as a person dan- 
_gerous to public order, he had always disapproved of them; 
and finally, since he was a stranger and ignorant of the cus- 
toms of the land and of the forms of legal procedure, he 
asked for legal counsel to conduct his case for him. | 

The items in the new indictment touched but lightly on 
the doctrinal matters which had been so prominent in the 
original charges, but instead were designed to show that 
Servetus had long been spreading doctrines opposed to 
Christianity as commonly received, and had led a criminal 
and immoral life; that his very teaching led to immorality 


9 4 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


and favored other religions; that his doctrines were those 
of heretics long ago condemned; and that he had come to 
Geneva in order to disturb that city with them. When he 
was examined, Servetus’s answers to these questions were so 
frank and clear that he must have created a very favorable 
impression upon his judges. The Attorney-General, how- 
ever, apparently coached by Calvin, at once sought to coun- 
teract this impression by taking up Servetus’s petition of a 
few days before and arguing that all the reasons urged for 
his discharge were unsupported by fact; that it was there-_ 
fore evident that Servetus was one of the most audacious, _ i 
rash, and dangerous heretics that had ever lived, since he 
wished to have the very laws annulled under which heretics _ 
might be punished; that his Anabaptist teachings were the 
least of his errors; that in his testimony he had lied and con- 
tradicted himself; that it had never been heard of that such 
criminals should be represented by counsel; and moreover 
that he was so clearly guilty that he needed no attorney. 
His request was therefore denied, and the trial went on to 
further examination of the prisoner. 

In due time a reply was received from the authorities at 
Vienne, sending a copy of the sentence there passed against 
Servetus, but claiming jurisdiction over him as an escaped 
prisoner for crimes committed in their territory, and there- 
fore asking that he be returned to them for punishment. 
They also begged to be excused from forwarding evidence 
for any one else to try him on. Upon being asked whether 
he chose to be tried here or to be sent back to Vienne, Serve- 
tus threw himself upon the ground and begged them with 
tears not to send him back, but to try him here and do with 
him as they would. This fell in well with the ideas of Calvin - 


1In fact, under the laws of Geneva at this time, and even under ocel 
of England long after this, an accused felon was denied counsel. 


THE TRIAL OF SERVETUS 95 


and his friends, for if the heretic were to be burned at all | 
they wished the credit of it, in order to prove that Prot- 
_estants were not less zealous than Catholics to preserve the 
purity of the Christian faith. They therefore politely de- 
clined to grant the request from Vienne, though they prom- 
ised that justice should be done. 

When the heretical teachings of Servetus next came up 
for discussion, it was felt that the discussion might take 
up too much time if carried on in court, and besides the 
subject was one too intricate for the judges to pass upon. 
It was therefore agreed that the necessary books should be 
furnished Servetus in prison, and that he and Calvin should 
discuss in writing the points at issue between them. The 
papers thus written, together with the rest of the documents 
in the case, were then to be submitted to the Swiss churches 
for their advice as to what to do; though this reference of 
the case can have been little to Calvin’s liking, and may even 
have been proposed by his enemies in order to foil him; for 
two years before, when Bolsec was on trial for opposing 
Calvin’s teaching on predestination, and Calvin wished that 
he, too, might be condemned to death, a similar appeal had 
resulted in Bolsec’s favor. 

Now it happened that on the very morning of the day 
that the Council ordered the written discussion between Cal- 
vin and Servetus, Calvin’s enemies had_ scored a_ notable 
point against him in the Council. This seems to have 
elated Servetus with the belief that he should certainly win 
his case, and to have bred in him a false sense of security. 
The written discussion lasted four days. In the name of 
the Geneva ministers Calvin first drew up a collection of 
thirty-eight extracts from the books of Servetus, which he 
offered as “partly impious blasphemies, partly profane and 
insane errors, and all wholly foreign to the Word of God 


96 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


and the orthodox faith.” These were submitted on their 
face and without comment. Servetus replied explaining 
and justifying his positions. Calvin wrote in refutation, 
and Servetus ended by merely penciling brief notes between 
the lines or on the margin of Calvin’s manuscript. The dis- 
cussion began on a fairly dignified plane, but Servetus, re- 
garding Calvin as already.defeated, soon lost his head, and 
at length abandoning argument fell into violent abuse and 
invective, much to the prejudice of his case! Calvin on 
the contrary kept his poise, and correspondingly strength- 
ened his case. The papers were then submitted to the Coun- 
cil, and were duly forwarded to the churches and Councils 
of Ziirich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, while Calvin had 
anticipated this step by writing to the several pastors in 
order to prepossess them against Servetus. 

It was four weeks before the answers were received, and 
all this time Servetus was languishing in prison. He ad- 
dressed to the Council an indignant appeal. Calvin, he 
said, was at the end of his rope, and was keeping him there 
for spite. Vermin were eating him alive, his clothes were 
in rags, and he had no change of garments. He again de- 
manded counsel, and appealed his case to the Council of 
Two Hundred. The leader of the opposition to Calvin sup- 
ported his appeal, but nothing came of it. A week later 
Servetus, still sure of his cause, demanded that Calvin him- 
self be imprisoned as a false accuser, on pain of death if 
found guilty, and he brought six charges against him. 
This request was ignored like the rest. Finally, after wait- 

1Thus he repeatedly calls Calvin impudent, ignorant, know-nothing, 
ridiculous, sophist, madman, sycophant, rascal, beast, monster, criminal, 
murderer, Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:9-11) nineteen times, and says 
“you lie” over fifty times. It was the pleasant custom of the age in 


religious controversy, and Calvin himself was a past master in the use 
of it upon occasion. 


THE TRIAL OF SERVETUS 97 


ing more than three weeks, he again made a pitiful appeal 
for the clothes he needed, being now ill and suffering from 
the cold; and this request was at last granted. 

The replies from the churches at length arrived. The 
Councils had with one accord referred the matter to their 
pastors, and the latter, though expressing themselves in 
differing terms and in guarded language, urged that Serve- 
tus was plainly guilty, and that all due means ought to be 
used to rid the churches of him, especially lest they get a 
bad reputation for harboring heretics. In the face of such 
unanimous advice there was but one action to be taken, and 
after a few days’ delay it was voted that Servetus be con- 
demned to be taken to the suburb of Champel and there be 
burned alive the following day, together with his books. 
Burning had for centuries been the penalty for heresy un- 
der the law of the Empire, and when Calvin revised the 
laws at Geneva he had let this law stand unchanged. In the 
present case he tried to get beheading substituted for burn- 
ing, but the matter had passed beyond his control. When 
the sentence was announced to Servetus he broke down com- 
pletely, for he had expected acquittal, or at the worst only 
banishment ; but he soon regained composure, sent for Cal- 
vin, and begged his forgiveness. Farel, minister at Neu- 
chatel, had that morning arrived at Calvin’s desire. He 
tried to get Servetus to renounce his errors and thus save 
his life. But Servetus remained true to his convictions, 
only begging for another form of death, lest the suffering 
at the stake cause him at last weakly to recant. Farel ac- 
companied him to the place of execution, where a large crowd 
had gathered, and there he died with a prayer upon his lips 
(October 27, 1553); but the details are too horrible to 
be related here. 

Even during the trial of Servetus a few voices had been 


98 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


raised in his behalf, one of them that of an Italian jurist, 
Gribaldo, who was in Geneva at the time, and of whom we 
shall hear more in the next chapter; while David Joris wrote 
from Basel to the governments of the Protestant cities of 
Switzerland urging them to avert his fate. But only the 
Anabaptists as yet disapproved the repression of heresy by 
force; and anything that Erasmus, Luther, Zwingli, or Cal- 
vin might earlier have said in favor of the milder treatment 
of heretics, or that had this very year been urged by Calvin 
in behalf of five young Protestants from Lausanne on trial 
for their life before the Inquisition at Lyon, was assidu- 
ously forgotten. The leading reformers without exception 
strongly approved the execution of Servetus, and Melanch- 
thon called it “fa pious example, which deserved to be re- 
membered to all posterity.” Calvin himself never expressed 
the slightest regret for it; but Catholics did not forget, and 
for generations afterwards whenever Protestants com- 
plained of Catholic treatment of Protestant heretics, they 
retorted by pointing to Calvin’s treatment of Servetus. 
Servetus’s ashes were not cold before there began a gen- 
eral revulsion of public feeling over the affair, and a bitter 
indignation against Calvin for his part in it. The Council 
at once dismissed the charges pending against the printer 
of the Restitutio, who had fallen into their hands. Calvin 
was naturally the object of the bitterest attacks, even in 
Geneva: “‘the dogs are now barking at me on all sides,” he 
wrote; and in Protestant Basel he was said to be detested 
almost more than in Catholic Paris. Within two months 
from Servetus’s death, Calvin was driven almost to the point 
of leaving Geneva. Forced to defend himself, he published 
early the next year a Defense of the Orthodox Faith on the 
Holy Trinity, agamst the Prodigious Errors of Michael 


THE TRIAL OF SERVETUS 99 


Servetus,’ in which after defending the capital punishment 
of heretics on general grounds he undertook to set forth 
Servetus in the most odious light. This did nothing to 
raise Calvin in general esteem, and it was soon far more 
than offset by an anonymous work on the punishment of 
heretics, a noble plea for tolerance generally attributed to 
Chatillon (Castellio), who some years before had had fric- 
tion with Calvin at Geneva and was now at Basel; while this 
in turn was followed by an answer from Calvin’s admiring 
friend Beza. In fact, by these and other writings, the 
whole question of the punishment or the toleration of here- 
tics was now opened for discussion, and with the most salu- 
tary result. For while heretics were for a long time still 
occasionally put to death in Protestant countries, from this 
time forth opposition to the practice steadily increased. 
Thus it may be said that. ifthe writings of Servetus had a 
great and lasting influence toward undermining belief in the 
Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity, his death had a yet 
more important influence in opening the way for religious 
liberty of thought and _ speech. 

_ In judging this whole affair one must take care not to 
be unjust toward Calvin, by being as narrow and unsympa- 
thetic toward him as he was toward Servetus. For he de- 
serves to be judged by the standards of his own age rather 
than of ours, even though we condemn those in comparison 
with our own. Besides being a man of extraordinary abil- 
ity, he had many of the finest traits of personal character. 
He has been called the father of popular education and the 
inventor of free schools. Protestantism owes him more 
than any other man after Luther, and for more than three 
centuries he remained the leader of its thought outside the 
Lutheran churches. But he took his office very seriously, 


1 Also cited as Déclaration, Fidelis Expositio, and Refutatio. 


100 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


and so wholly identified himself with his cause that he took 
attacks upon himself as equivalent to attacks upon the 
Christian religion; and when one had seemed to him to com- 
mit an offense against the honor of God, or to endanger the 
salvation of immortal souls, he would never forgive nor 
make allowances, but would pursue his opponent vindic- 
tively, relentlessly, and without pity. This should help us 
to explain, if not to excuse, his attitude toward Servetus, 
and even his willingness so treacherously to betray him to 
the authorities at Vienne. 

Servetus, on the other hand, was in controversy self- 
conceited, obstinate, fanatical, insulting, and exasperating 
to the last degree, and by his own manner brought upon 
himself no small part of what he suffered.1| Though a man 
of brilliant and versatile talents, he held, along with the 
most advanced ideas, others that bordered on the supersti- 
tious and made some think him half mad. Yet at bottom he 
was a sincere and reverent Christian, prizing the Bible far 
above all other books, devoutly attached to Jesus, who to 
him was all in all, and willing for the sake of what he held 
true to be faithful even unto death. Three centuries and a 
half have squared accounts between him and Calvin. Per- 
secution has been condemned and toleration vindicated. 
Servetus’s heresy has steadily gained upon Calvin’s ortho- 
doxy until at Geneva itself Calvin’s creed has long since been 
laid aside, and an expiatory monument has been erected by 
Calvin’s followers near the spot where Servetus perished ”; 
while in four cities ? of Europe where in 1553 he would not 
have been permitted to live, statues of him now stand to 
honor his memory. 


1 Coleridge wrote, “If ever any poor fanatic thrust himself into the 
flames, that man was Servetus.” 

2 Dedicated on the 350th anniversary of his death. 

2 Paris, Vienne, Annemasse near Geneva, Madrid. 


CHAPTER XIII 


ANTITRINITARIANISM AT GENEVA AFTER 
SERVETUS, 1553-1566 


It might naturally be supposed that after the execution of 
Servetus opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity would have 
been at an end in Switzerland, or at all events at Geneva, 
and that any still entertaining doubts of that doctrine would 
have kept them profoundly to themselves. Such did not 
at all prove to be the case. Calvin and his sympathizers 
soon discoverd that they had only “‘scotched the snake, not 
killed it.” There was, as we have seen, a growing senti- 
ment in favor of religious toleration, and the death of Serve- 
tus had without doubt caused persons of independent mind 
to inquire more widely and deeply than before whether the 
doctrine of the Trinity were true or not; and of all places it 
was right at Geneva itself, under Calvin’s very nose, that 
while the ashes of Servetus were still warm the discussion 
again broke out. 

This new outbreak took place among the Italian refugees, 
who were somewhat protected from Calvin’s observation by 
the fact that they formed a community more or less separate 
from the native Genevese, and that they spoke a foreign 
tongue. When Ochino escaped from Italy to Geneva in 
1542 he found already there a considerable number of his 
countrymen, refugees who had been kindly received by Cal- 
vin, and he preached to them in Italian until he left Geneva 


in 1545. The sermons were followed by free discussion on 
101 


102 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the part of the members, and this must have opened danger- 
ous opportunities for any heretic to express his mind. A 
few years later an Italian church was regularly organized. 
Though most of its members were strictly orthodox, some 
of them were inclined to be liberal; and during and after 
the trial of Servetus several of them leaned to his side and 
denounced his execution. © These latter were of course cau- 
tious about expressing their views too openly; but they did 
not conceal them when in conversation with trusted friends. 
Their general objection to the doctrine of the Trinity was 
that it was incomprehensible and unreasonable, and that it 
was self-contradictory. There were four persons who were 
prominent above the others in this movement, Gribaldo, Bian- 
drata, Alciati, and Gentile; and we shall have separately to 
see what they did and what befel them. 

Matteo Gribaldo was regarded by Calvin as the source of 
the heresies in the Italian church at Geneva. He was a na- 
tive of Piedmont, and of his early life nothing is known; but 
in mature life he was a noted jurist, who lectured upon law 
at various universities of France and Italy, and especially 
at the University of Padua. ‘Though he embraced the doc- 
trines of the Reformation, he managed for some years to 
keep them to himself enough to escape the eye of the Inquisi- 
tion. At length in 1555 he found the heresy-hunters on his 
trail, and resisting every inducement of honor and distinc- 
tion offered him if he would only conform to the Church, he 
gave up his profession at Padua and withdrew to Switzer- 
land, where he had some years before purchased an estate 
at Farges near Geneva, which he had often visited in the 
summers. He was at Geneva, as we have seen, while the 
trial of Servetus was in progress, and had then frankly ex- 
pressed his disapproval of capital punishment for heresy, 
and had in vain sought an interview on the subject with 


ANTITRINITARIANISM AT GENEVA 1038 


Calvin which the latter, suspicious of Gribaldo’s orthodoxy, 
declined. Being at Geneva again the following summer, at 
the Italian church he expressed his views as to the Trinity 
so freely as to cause no little offense, for it was clear that 
he was practically an Arian. 

Upon his withdrawal from Padua, a year later, Gribaldo 
had no sooner arrived in Switzerland than he was invited to 
the chair of law at the University of Tiibingen. On his 
way thither he again visited his friends at Geneva, and this 
time it was Calvin who sought a conference with him in the 
presence of some of the church officers; but when Calvin re- 
fused to shake hands with him, as a man under suspicion of 
heresy, Professor Gribaldo at once left the room in anger. 
He was required, however, to make a statement of his views 
before the Council, and in this, despite his care not to com- 
promise himself, he let fall some words which were construed 
as heretical. Enough. He was forthwith expelled from the 
city. 

Upon going to Tiibingen he was received with great dis- 
tinction; but the relentless Calvin pursued him thither, warn- 
ing one of his colleagues against him as a conceited and 
dangerous enemy of the faith, and Beza did the same. 
Complaint was made to his ruler, the Duke of Wiirttemberg, 
and Gribaldo was brought to answer for his errors before 
the university senate. He asked for three weeks in which 
to prepare his answer, but used the time to make good his 
escape. He fled to his home at Farges, but the Duke got 
the authorities of Bern, in whose territory it lay, to arrest 
him. At length, as the less of two evils, he consented to sub- 
scribe an orthodox creed and abjure his errors, after which 
he was required to leave the city within half a year. Mean- 
while his wife died, and he besought the government to allow 
him to remain with his seven motherless children. The re- 


104 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


quest was granted, on condition that he keep quiet. A 
year or two later he was lecturing again at Grenoble, but it 
was only a short time before religious persecution drove him 
also from here; and after a few more troubled years he was 
carried off by the plague at Farges in 1564, the same year 
in which Calvin also died. 

While Gribaldo had been only an occasional and brief 
visitor at Geneva, Biandrata, Alciati, and Gentile were res- 
idents there and members of the Italian church. They 
agreed substanitally with Gribaldo and with one another 
in holding that the doctrine of the Trinity accords with 
neither Scripture nor reason, and they seem to have derived 
their views from Servetus. Of these three the one by far the 
most distinguished in the history of Unitarianism was Dr. 
Giorgio Biandrata.‘ He was born of noble family at Sa- 
luzzo in Piedmont about 1515, studied medicine and taught 
it at the Universities of Montpellier and Pavia, and was re- 
nowned as one of the best medical writers of his time. While 
yet a comparatively young man, his reputation was such that 
he was chosen court physician to the Italian Queen Bona 
Sforza of Poland, and later served her daughter, Princess 
Isabella of Transylvania, in the same capacity. He was a 
very clever and crafty man, and won great personal influence 
at both courts. 

Returning from Poland to Italy in 1551 he practiced his 
profession for a time at Pavia, and later on in the Grisons 
he met Renato.* But having become infected with the ideas 
of the Reformation he had in 1556 to flee from the Inquisi- 
tion, and came to Geneva, where he joined the Italian church 
and for a time lived quietly. The discussion then in prog- 
ress as to the Trinity seemed to trouble him, and he often 


1The Latin form of the name, Blandrata, is also used. 
2See pages 76-77, 


ANTITRINITARIANISM AT GENEVA — 105 


resorted to Calvin for light. He would come away each 
time apparently satisfied, only to return later with new ques- 
tions. At last Calvin’s patience was out, and half suspect- 
ing the sincerity of Biandrata’s questions he refused to have 
anything more to do with him. This suspicion was prob- 
ably justified; for after Gribaldo had been banished, Bian- 
drata and Alciati assumed leadership in the attacks upon 
the doctrine of the Trinity. So many members of the Ital- 
ian church became dangerously infected that the pastor on 
his death-bed in 1557 implored Calvin to take the matter in 
hand and root out the heresy. Calvin willingly complied, 
and the next year, after other attempts had proved inef- 
fectual, a very strict confession of faith was drawn up, 
directed especially against these errors; and after lengthy 
discussion, in which Biandrata and Alciati passionately op- 
posed the Trinity, it was voted to require all the members 
to sign the confession and to promise to adhere strictly to it 
in future. Six of the members refused to sign but afterwards 
yielded, Alciati and Biandrata apparently among them; 
they continued nevertheless secretly to discuss the matter 
with susceptible persons, and hence they together with others 
were ere long called before the officers of the church. 
They were promised immunity from punishment if they 
would only preserve the peace; but soon afterwards Bian- 
drata, scenting immediate danger, took hasty flight, going 
first to Gribaldo at Farges and then to Ziirich, where he 
found so little sympathy that he was advised to leave the 
city. He therefore returned to practice his profession in 
Poland; and we shall later see how he became practically the 
founder of the Unitarian movement in that country and in 
Transylvania. 

Giovanni Paolo Alciati, Biandrata’s companion in this 
controversy, was another Piedmontese of noble birth, who 


106 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


had formerly been a soldier in the service of Milan. Before 
coming to Geneva he had been in the Grisons with Biandrata 
and Renato, and had also been a correspondent of Paleario.? 
He was rude of speech, and in the discussion referred to 
above he declared that in the Trinity Calvin worshiped 
three devils, worse than all the idols of the Papacy. He 
was about to be arrested when he fled with Biandrata, and 
when bidden to return he declared he would not set foot in 
Geneva so long as Calvin lived. He was therefore deprived 
of his citizenship, and permanently banished from Geneva 
under pain of death. Two others were also banished at 
about the same time. Alciati soon joined Biandrata in Po- 
land and assisted him in spreading antitrinitarian views 
there, and was later active in the same cause in Moravia. 
The end of his life was spent at Danzig, which became one 
of the seats of Antitrinitarianism in Prussian Poland, where 
he was its first recorded adherent. 

One more of the Geneva Antitrinitarians remains to be 
mentioned, Giovanni Valentino Gentile, whom Beza consid- 
ered the fountainhead of all the disturbances in the Geneva 
church, and who for his adventurous life and tragic death 
deserves to be considered as second only to Servetus among 
Unitarian martyrs. He was a native of Calabria and was 
well educated, and had formerly been a teacher. He too had 
been in the circle of Valdez at Naples. Becoming too much 
of a Protestant to remain safely in Italy, he came to Geneva 
about 1556, attracted by the reputation of Calvin, and here 
became more and more inclined to the antitrinitarian fac- 
tion in the church. He was one of the six that at first re- 
fused to sign Calvin’s creed, and were later persuaded to do 
so; but after Biandrata’s flight from Geneva, Gentile felt 


1 See page 72. 


ANTITRINITARIANISM AT GENEVA 107 


driven by his conscience boldly to bear witness to the truth 
of God as he saw it. He therefore made no secret of his 
opinion that Calvin’s doctrine really made a Quaternity of 
four divine beings, instead of a Trinity of three,’ and showed 
that he was himself fundamentally an Arian. The Council 
took his case in hand, required a formal statement of his be- 
liefs, imprisoned him, denied him (like Servetus) legal coun- 
sel, and finally declared him worthy of death as a heretic. 
It was not until he had been condemned to be beheaded 
(Geneva was not likely now to invite further criticism by 
burning another heretic at the stake, and even this sentence 
of Gentile aroused general indignation) that he saw that if 
he would live he must unequivocally renounce all his errors. 
Having at length done this he was recommended to the 
mercy of his judges. He was therefore required to undergo 
a humiliating form of punishment in vogue at the time and 
known as the amende honorable: he was obliged barefoot and 
bareheaded, clad only in a shirt, and preceded by trumpet- 
ers, to march through the streets with lighted torch in hand, 
and then on his knees to confess his crime, burn his writings 
with his own hand, and beg the forgiveness of the magis- 
trates; and he had to take oath not to leave the city with- 
out permission. 

At the first opportunity he broke the oath thus forced 
from him, and fled to Gribaldo at Farges, and soon after 
that to Lyon, where he published an Antidota to Calvin’s 
doctrine, which he attacked without reserve as fantastic and 
sophistical. Ill health and his poverty soon caused him to 
go to Grenoble to seek the hospitality of Gribaldo who was 
now lecturing there. Being soon called to account by the 
Catholic authorities here, he proved to them that his attacks 
had been made only against Calvin and the Reformed 


1 Following Servetus, see page 61. 


108 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Church, whereat they were so well pleased that they let him 
go. He thought it safer however to return to Farges, where 
he was soon arrested and imprisoned again, though upon 
giving his promise to remain quiet he was set at liberty. 
Returning to Lyon he published another writing attacking 
the doctrine of Calvin, was again arrested on suspicion of 
heresy, and again satisfied the Catholic authorities that his 
opposition was rather against Calvin than against the doc- 
trine of the Trinity (which was probably more than half the 
truth), and after fifty days’ imprisonment was once more 
set free. After all these troubles he was ready to accept 
the invitation of Biandrata to come to Poland and help him 
spread Antitrinitarianism there, and thither he went in 1563 
together with Alciati. 

The poor man could nowhere long escape persecution. 
Calvin at once wrote letters warning the Polish churches 
against him, and in 1566 a severe edict against heretics was 
passed which made it necessary for him to flee to Moravia. 
Here he sought an Anabaptist community in which many An- 
titrinitarians during this period found refuge, but he did not 
remain long. Whether he was fatally attracted to danger 
as a moth to flame, or whether he thought that with Calvin 
now dead, and several of the other leading reformers lately 
carried off by the plague which in Switzerland had swept 
away some 38,000, he might now with better success pro- 
claim the doctrine he had so much at heart, he returned 
again to Farges, only to find that his friend Gribaldo had 
died of the plague. 

With almost fanatical self-confidence Gentile now chal- 
lenged all the Protestant theologians of France and Savoy 
to a public debate on the doctrine of the Trinity, the loser 
to be punished by death! The challenge was ignored, but 
again, and for the last time, he was arrested as a heretic. 


ANTITRINITARIANISM AT GENEVA 109 


He claimed in defense that he had not attacked the true 
scriptural Trinity, but only the false Trinity of Calvin. 
After five weeks in prison at Gex he was removed to the seat 
of government at Bern. Feeling was very tense there on ac- 
count of a recent outbreak of Anabaptism, and Gentile was 
suspected of being also an Anabaptist. Various churches 
and universities in Germany had already publicly condemned 
his teachings as Arian. Beza, who had now succeeded Cal- 
vin in Geneva, wrote to urge action against him, and the 
reformers of Bern and Ziirich did the same. He was 
charged with seven specific errors as to the Trinity, and con- 
fessed them all, but defended them as the truth. He was 
charged also with disrespect for sacred things, and with 
having violated his oath at Geneva. After a month’s time, 
as he could not be brought to renounce his errors, he was 
condemned to be beheaded. Even on his way to execution 
he charged the clergy who attended him with being Sabel- 
lians,* and declared that he died (1566) as a witness to the 
honor of the most high God. But so thoroughly had all 
open sympathy with the doctrines of Servetus now been sup- 
pressed in Switzerland, that hardly a voice was raised in 
protest save at Basel; and even there it was perhaps as 
much because political feeling was then strained between Ba- 
sel and the rest of Switzerland as because of any strong sen- 
timent in favor of religious toleration; for it will be remem- 
bered that it was at Basel that only a few years before this 
the body of David Joris had been taken from ils grave and 
burnt.” 

Thus in this part of Switzerland, as in the other countries 
of which we have spoken, Antitrinitarianism was violently 
put down, and nothing more was heard of it for many gen- 


1See page 15. 
2 See page 49. 


110 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


erations; for in the same year in which Gentile perished, 
most of the Swiss Protestant churches adopted the Helvetic 
Confession which ere long was also adopted by the Reformed 
Churches of France, Hungary, and Poland; and thus these 
churches were henceforth committed to a strict and un- 
changing form of religious thought much as the early Chris- 
tian Church had been at Constantinople in 381.1 There had 
been, however, during this same period, a milder struggle 
for freedom of belief going on in other Swiss cities than 
Geneva and Bern, and we must therefore next follow the 
story of that at Ziirich and at Basel. 


1See page 24. 


CHAPTER XIV 


ANTITRINITARIAN TENDENCIES AT ZURICH 
AND AT BASEL, 1553-1572 


Geneva was not the only Swiss city where there. were 
Italian refugees, or where there were seeds of heresy trying 
to sprout. Zirich, the home of Zwingli, who had founded 
the Reformation in Switzerland, had long been a favorite 
refuge for Italian ‘Protestants, when in 1555 their number 
was suddenly increased by a whole congregation at once. 
There had been a flourishing young Protestant church at Lo- 
carno in Italian Switzerland; and when the Catholic govern- 
ment there at length required them either to give up their 
faith or to leave the city, they unhesitatingly decided to do 
the latter. A few of them stopped in the Grisons, where they 
were made welcome; but the most of them, some six or eight 
score, went at once to Ziirich, where they were hospitably 
received, were granted a church of their own for Italian 
worship, and were aided from public funds. Now it hap- 
pened that just as they were looking for a minister Ochino 
was near by at Basel, and the Locarno church thought 
themselves most happy when he accepted their unanimous 
call. 

We last took leave of Ochino at Geneva in 1545. Since 
then he had had a varied and interesting life. From Ge- 
neva he had gone to Augsburg where for two years he 
preached to an Italian congregation. When it became un- 


safe under a Catholic government for him longer to stay 
111 


112 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


there, he went to England, at the urgent invitation of Arch- 
bishop Cranmer, and for nearly six years preached to an 
Italian congregation in London. All this time he was on 
the one hand publishing volumes of sermons to be circulated 
in his dear Italy, where he might no longer preach in person, 
and was on the other hand becoming acquainted with dis- 
tinguished Protestants, among them Princess (later Queen) 
Elizabeth, to whom he dedicated one of his books. But the 
accession of the Catholic Queen Mary made it necessary 
for him to leave England, and he returned to Switzerland, 
arriving at Geneva, so the tradition runs, on the very day 
after the execution of Servetus. After a brief visit to 
Chiavenna, and about a year’s residence at Basel, he was 
called to Ziirich, as said above. 

Ochino was now sixty-eight years old, and deserved a life 
of quiet retirement; but he accepted his call to new labors 
without hesitation. For eight years he discharged his of- 
fice faithfully and with energy, and was held in universal 
esteem. Although it is possible to imagine in some of his 
writings before now a faint tinge of heresy, his orthodoxy 
had never been called in question by Protestants. But in 
1563 he published two volumes of Dialogues, which soon 
brought him into trouble, for one of them was interpreted as 
arguing in favor of polygamy. This was then a tender sub- 
ject in the Protestant world, for one of the Protestant 
princes, Philip of Hesse, had some years previously con- 
tracted a polygamous marriage, and had been defended by 
Luther for it; whereupon Catholics had taken advantage of 
the situation by calling attention to the demoralizing ef- 
fects of the Protestant religion. 

The Protestant government of Ziirich did not propose to 
bear the weight of another such scandal. Without having 
granted him even a trial, the magistrates condemned Ochino 


ANTITRINITARIANISM AT ZURICH 113 


to banishment within three weeks. At the edge of winter, and 
at the age of seventy-six, with his four motherless children, 
he was obliged to set forth. Refused residence at Basel 
and also at Miihlhausen, he was permitted to stay the win- 
ter out at Nuremberg, though forbidden to remain there 
longer. In May he arrived in Poland, where he already had 
numerous friends and correspondents. Here at least he 
had hoped to be unmolested, and he commenced preaching 
to an Italian congregation in the capital, at Krakow. But 
the Catholics had never forgiven their most distinguished 
preacher for leaving the Church. Within three months 
they secured from a compliant government a decree that 
all foreign preachers who were spreading the Protestant 
religion should leave the country. The decree was aimed 
especially at Ochino—in fact, he is said to have been the 
only one to whom it was applied at the time. Nobles inter- 
ceded for him in vain. Before he could leave he was stricken 
down with the plague. Three of his four children died of 
it. With his one remaining daughter he was finally able 
late in the year to travel. One refuge still remained when 
all others had failed. It was among the Anabaptists of 
Moravia. Thither he turned his faltering steps, and having 
reached them he died within three weeks at Slavkov (Auster- 
litz), in his seventy-eighth year. 

In the winter after he was driven from Ziirich, Ochino 
prepared an apology to the ministers of that city, in which 
he defended himself and attacked them. They replied with 
A Sponge to Wipe out the Aspersions Cast by Ochino, in 
which they ransacked his writings for materials to justify 
their treatment of him; and it was not until now that it oc- 
curred to them to charge him with unsoundness as to the 
Trinity. Two of his Dialogues had been on that subject; 
and in those, although he appeared to be defending the doc- 


114 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


trine, the arguments which he put into the mouth of the 
attack were so much stronger than those that he put into the 
mouth of the defense, that there certainly was some color in 
the charge that he really meant by this means to undermine 
a doctrine in which he no longer much believed. He was un- 
sound also on the doctrine of the atonement. Ait all events, 
he had expressed strong disapproval of the execution of 
Servetus; at Ziirich he had been intimate with Lelius So- 
cinus, whose part in the movement we have next to notice; 
and we find him in Poland associating with the party which 
was rapidly developing antitrinitarian views there, and tak- 
ing part in one of their synods; while it was with the anti- 
trinitarian Paruta’ that he found his last refuge in Mo- 
ravia. For these reasons his name seems to belong in the 
history of this movement, in which his writings had impor- 
tant influence. 

Lelius Socinus (Lelio Sozini) is one whose name has shone 
by reflected light from his far more famous nephew Faustus, 
of whom we shall hear much in connection with the Unitarian 
movement in Poland. He was born at Siena in 1525, of a 
family of very distinguished jurists, and connected by family 
ties with one of the Popes. He was educated in law at 
Padua and Bologna, and early went over to the Reforma- 
tion. He was for a time at Venice, though no good evidence 
is extant that, as is sometimes alleged, he belonged to the 
antitrinitarian movement there. In 1547 he came to Chia- 
venna and met Renato, who apparently had a profound in- 
fluence on the development of the young man’s thought. He 
next spent some time in travel in the Protestant lands of 
northern Europe—Switzerland, France, England, Holland, 


1 Nicola Paruta was a nobleman of Lucca, and one of the Anabap- 
tists in the Venetian territory. He came from Venice to Geneva in 
1560, and later was in Poland and Moravia, and in Transylvania, where 
a catechism which he prepared was used by the Unitarians. 


ANTITRINITARIANISM AT ZURICH 115 


and Germany. Everywhere his family name and his attrac- 
tive manner and character won him friends among the distin- 
guished, and he enjoyed the friendship and received the 
praise of Calvin, Melanchthon, and other leading reformers. 
He was apparently trying to reorganize his religious thought, 
and wherever he went was full of questions about points of 
doctrine; but although these at times aroused misgivings 
as to whether he was not becoming tinged with heresy, he 
never wholly lost the confidence of even Calvin. 

In 1549, after further travels to Poland, Moravia, and 
Italy, he returned to Switzerland and finally settled down 
at Ziirich as the safest place for a man of inquiring mind; 
for during his absence in Italy Servetus had been put to 
death at Geneva, and of this Socinus so strongly disap- 
proved that he was suspected of being the author of the 
bitter attack which was soon afterwards made against Cal- 
vin.t After a time complaints began to reach Ziirich that 
Socinus was heretical as to the Trinity, and he was there- 
fore called to account. Yet he had been regarded as or- 
thodox enough to be chosen one of the elders of the Itahan 
church when it arrived from Locarno, and had been one of 
the two chosen to take to Basel its invitation to Ochino, 
whom he had previously met in England; and he now gave 
a satisfactory explanation of his views, and wrote out a con- 
fession of his faith which was accepted. Henceforth, how- 
ever, he became more and more reserved in expressing’ his 
views, save to trusted Italian friends; and although his 
doubts as to the received creeds are likely to have strength- 
ened rather than grown weaker, yet he gave no open ground 
for complaint. When in 1562 he died at the early age of 
thirty-seven, his papers fell to his nephew, Faustus, and the 
latter, adopting and expanding the ideas he had found in 


1See page 99, 


116 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


these, became some twenty years later the leader of the Uni- 
tarians in Poland, and the author of their system of doc- 
trine. It is thus that Lelius Socinus has sometimes been 
called “‘the patriarch of Socinianism,” though so far as we 
can now discover his influence upon it has been greatly over- 
estimated. 

Another member of the Ziirich church, however, who was 
less guarded in expressing his views than Socinus and Ochino 
had been, was Antonio Maria Besozzo, a Milanese gentleman 
and teacher who had joined himself to the exiles from 
Locarno, and had been a close friend of Socinus. Some her- 
esy hunters lit upon some things he had said in conversation, 
magnified them, and laid the matter before the Council. He 
was judged guilty of the heresies of Servetus and Ochino, 
and, being permanently banished from the place, together 
with his wife he withdrew to Basel in 1565. This was the 
end of Antitrinitarianism at Ziirich. 

At Basel, the other Swiss town of which we have to speak, 
there was no separate Italian church, though a notable com- 
pany of Italians of liberal mind found a home in the church 
of the Protestants. Basel was the chief home of scholarship 
in Switzerland, and the best scholars of Europe resorted 
thither; interested, after the manner of scholars, not so 
much in particular doctrines as in general liberty of thought 
and conscience. Erasmus had left his liberalizing spirit be- 
hind him here, and the press was uncommonly free. Here 
Servetus had at first found sympathy; Ochino had lived 
here; Faustus Socinus had here spent four important years 
of his life; David Joris had found Basel the most tolerant 
place to which to flee from persecution,’ and from here had 
written his noteworthy letter urging that Servetus’s life 


1See page 48. 


ANTITRINITARIANISM AT ZURICH = 117 


be spared.t It was also here that Chatillon in the year 
after Servetus’s death wrote his stinging inquiry as to 
whether heretics were to be put to death;* and here that 
Mino Celso * in 1577 raised another powerful voice against 
persecution. The principle of perfect freedom of belief in 
religion is an even more important mark of Unitarianism 
than is any particular doctrine; Basel therefore deserves to 
be remembered in this history because it was at this period 
the place above all others where religious toleration was most 
strongly advocated. 

Besides those named above, whose influence (much to Cal- 
vin’s disgust) made Basel more ‘hospitable to freedom of 
religious thought than were the other Swiss cities, one other 
person may have special mention. Celio Secondo Curione 
was born of noble family in Piedmont in 1508, the youngest 
of a family of twenty-four children, and was early left an 
orphan. He was educated at the University of Turin, and 
as one of the disciples of Valdez became attached to the 
doctrines of the Reformation. After teaching for some time 
at the universities of Pavia and Lucca he fell under the eye 
of the Inquisition in 1542 and fled the country, spending 
some time in the Grisons with Renato on his way to Switzer- 
land, where he soon became Rector of the University of 
Lausanne. Later on as Professor of Eloquence at Basel he 
attracted large numbers of students, and until his death 
in 1569 was admired as one of the most learned of the Ital- 
ian refugees. As early as 1549 he published a work on Chris- 

1 See page 98. 

2 See page 99. 

3 He was of Siena, and when well on in years left Italy for safety in 
Switzerland, and after spending some time in the Grisons he came in 


1569 to Basel. He has sometimes been claimed as an Antitrinitarian, 
and was certainly of liberal mind. 


118 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


tian doctrine in which he significantly avoided reference to the 
doctrine of the Trinity; and in the following year he at- 
tended the Anabaptist Council at Venice. In another work 
he maintained the comfortable doctrine that the great ma- 
jority of men will be saved. And since he was friendly 
with Cellarius, Biandrata, Gribaldo, Ochino, Socinus, Stan- 
caro, Chatillon, and other Antitrinitarians, and since he 
opposed the burning of Servetus and was regarded by Cal- 
vin as a Servetian, it is fair to presume him an Antitrini- 
tarian at heart, even if not an outspoken one. 

We have reached the end of our survey of the first scat- 
tered beginnings of Unitarianism in Europe. We have seen 
that during the first half-century after Luther, in all the 
countries in Western Europe where the Reformation took 
root (save England, of which we shall speak separately in 
later chapters), there were independent spirits who were not 
satisfied to stop where the leading reformers had stopped 
in their reform of the Church, but who wished to carry it 
further and thoroughly to reform the doctrines of Christian- 
ity, so that they might be based only on the teachings of 
the Bible and might not give offense to reason. These were 
the earliest Unitarians in Europe; or rather, they were the 
first to take those steps away from the orthodox doctrines 
of Christianity about God, Christ, the atonement, and re- 
lated doctrines, which led at length to modern Unitarianism. 
Why did not their movement succeed better? The answer is 
plain to see. None of them was long permitted to pro- 
claim his views unmolested. We have seen that in every in- 
stance thus far the penalty of denying the doctrine of the 
Trinity and of the Deity of Christ was bitter persecution— 
banishment, imprisonment, even death itself. One can hardly 
refrain from applying to these the words of the New Testa- 


ANTITRINITARIANISM AT ZURICH 119 


ment written of heroes of faith of an earlier time,’ “who 
through faith quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge 
of the sword, were tortured, not accepting their deliverance; 
while others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, 
moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were slain with 
the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goat- 
skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom the world 
was not worthy.” None of these was permitted to live a 
peaceful life, and not a few suffered tragic deaths. The 
conscience and mind of man were not yet free in Protestant 
Europe, any more than in Catholic. The laws of the State 
were used to repress freedom of thought and free speech 
within the Church. Those that escaped death wandered over 
the face of Europe, happy if they might at last find some- 
Where a quiet corner to die in. Is it any wonder that 
Unitarianism did not spread faster? Indeed Unitarian views 
of Christianity would have come to an end almost in the 
generation in which they arose, had there not been in eastern 
Europe two remote countries where broader religious tolera- 
tion prevailed, and where Unitarians might under the law in 
some measure enjoy equal rights with other Protestants. 
For the further development of our subject, promoted by 
some of those whom we have seen driven out of Italy and 
Switzerland, we have next, therefore, to turn to Poland and 
Transylvania. 


1 Hebrews 11:33-88. 


a 1 a | xt oe 
a seHbth weer 4 

ca Sean eat Wt % ae 
hie 
aa Ae ae = i yar 


a Vy" 3! pipe 


an eeu 
ara: a, 
& ‘Mat Ge 
j Oe Tia Mie : ; 
» "i sy ” r 
v7 


ag A Aes ; a 


y vs “| 7 
my iy : watR 
oa NG ep 





DIVISION III 


UNITARIANISM IN POLAND 


7 


DP nee ee © 
Feet Nr 7‘ 
i 

f 


iit 


DL MAC RTS 
ne get geri SR aac ihe P| 





CHAPTER XV 


THE BEGINNINGS OF ANTITRINITARIANISM 
IN POLAND, DOWN TO 1565 


Thus far our history has been a story of oft-repeated 
failure and frequent tragedy. Wherever thinkers or preach- 
ers arose, alike in Catholic lands and in Protestant, and 
whether in Italy and France, or in Switzerland, Germany, 
and Holland, who were independent enough and daring 
enough to appeal to the Scriptures, or to the early Fathers 
of the Christian Church, or to reason, against the orthodox 
doctrines about God and Christ, there they were inevitably 
called to account by both Church and State, and forced 
either to recant and relapse into silence, or else to suf- 
fer banishment, imprisonment, or martyrdom. ‘The move- 
ment was thus effectually suppressed throughout all west- 
ern Europe. [rom all this depressing story we can now 
turn to a happier one, in spite of its still being often dark- 
ened by the shadows of persecution and death, in two coun- 
tries of eastern Europe, where laws were more tolerant, and 
the State was less subservient to the will of the Church. 

The first of these countries was Poland. Poland was, 
in the age of the Reformation, a great and powerful 
monarchy, a little larger than the state of Texas, and one 
of the most free and enlightened nations of Europe. Its 
capital, Krakow, boasted a celebrated university, the 
second oldest in all Europe, which had given the world 


Copernicus and other famous scholars ; while its metropolis 
123 


124 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


(and later capital), Warsaw, was called “the Paris of the 
East.” The Poles were a people of uncertain origin, a 
part of that great Slavic stock which has for centuries 
occupied the east and southeast of Europe. By the ninth 
century the wandering tribes had become a nation with a 
hereditary monarchy; toward the end of the fourteenth cen- 
tury the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was united to Poland un- 
der the crown of the famous Jagiello dynasty ; and when this 
dynasty became extinct in 1572, the monarchy became elec- 
tive, whence its people have often loved to call it a republic. 
The real power of government was henceforth in the hands of 
the nobility, a class comprising about a tenth of the popula- 
tion, and including all men who owned land or whose ances- 
tors had owned it. The nobles were supposed to have equal 
political rights, and only they might vote. The magnates, 
or more powerful nobles, owned vast tracts of country, in- 
cluding cities and villages, and held nearly absolute sway 
over all upon their estates. Laws were made by their dele- 
gates meeting in Diets. The nobles were proverbially quar- 
relsome and jealous of one another; so that neighboring 
nations, taking advantage of the weakness resulting from 
these internal discords, eventually fell upon Poland and 
carved it to pieces in three successive divisions (1772, 1793, 
and 1795), distributing it all among Russia, Prussia, and 
Austria. Thus for a century and a quarter Poland was 
extinct, save in the hearts of its children, until as a result 
of the World War it has again been reéstablished among 
the nations. 

Poland had accepted Christianity in the tenth century, 
and Lithuania had done so upon its union with Poland; but 
the nobles were little inclined to allow foreign interference 
with their affairs, and for centuries after the Catholic 
Church had gained an almost absolute sway in western Eu- 


BEGINNINGS IN POLAND 125 


rope, its hold in Poland was but feeble. Even before Luther 
the doctrines of the Waldenses and of Hus had largely 
undermined its influence; and although laws against heresy 
had indeed been passed, they were but little enforced, so that 
the Reformation early and easily took root here. The 
Protestant faith was introduced in several different forms, 
by the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church (Calvinists), 
the Bohemian Brethren (Hussites), and the Anabaptists— 
the latter without separate organization, but as a sort of 
leaven, especially among the Reformed. Of all these the 
Reformed Church was the most influential, chiefly among the 
nobility, and with it the Bohemian Brethren soon formed a 
union. With the active sympathy of many of the nobles, 
the Reformation spread rapidly and widely. Synods of the 
Catholic Church passed ordinances against Protestantism, 
but they could not be enforced. By the middle of the six- 
teenth century the power of Catholicism had been broken, 
and at length over two thousand Catholic churches became 
Protestant, and an overwhelming majority of both houses 
of the national Diet were of the reformed faith. King Sig- 
ismund Augustus II (1548-1572), though Catholic, was 
tolerant, and refused to persecute Dissidents (as all non- 
Catholics came to be called), saying that he wished to be king 
of both sheep and goats; and immediately after his death 
the Diet passed in 1573 a law guaranteeing equal protec- 
tion and rights to all citizens without regard to differences 
of religious faith, and this law later kings, when they received 
the crown, were repeatedly required to promise to maintain. 
When upon one occasion a candidate for the throne, be- 
ing an intense Catholic, demurred about taking oath to 
maintain this law, he was sternly told, Si non jurabis non 
regnabis—If you do not swear, you shall not be king; and 
he had to submit. 


126 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


The first recorded instance of Antitrinitarianism in Po- 
land, however, is found not in Protestant but in Catholic 
circles, and the account of it has come to us in a curious 
story. There was at Krakow in 1546 a little group of 
liberal Catholic scholars who used to meet together privately 
to discuss the Protestant doctrines then so rife. The 
leader of the number was Francesco Lismanino, head of the 
. Franciscan Order in Poland, and confessor to Queen Bona, 
who being Italian, had obtained some of Ochino’s sermons 
and given them to him to read. At one of their meetings 
there appeared a Dutchman who passed under the name of 
Spiritus, and who, in turning over a book of prayers in the 
library of his host, and finding some of them addressed to 
each of the three persons of the Trinity, inquired whether, 
then, they had three Gods. The subject was soon broken 
off, but not until it had made a deep impression on those 
present, of whom several later became Antitrinitarians. 
Other influences also worked in the same direction. Ser- 
vetus’s little books on the Trinity had already been much 
read in Poland; Lelius Socinus! had visited Lismanino at 
Krakow in 1549; Stancaro,” who had come to the University 
there as Professor of Hebrew, created much stir a little 
later by teaching that Christ was our mediator only through 
his human nature, and by thus ignoring his divinity paved 
the way for doubt of the Trinity, and opened a discussion 
which agitated the new reformers for five or six years; and 
undoubtedly, since Poland enjoyed closest relations with Ital- 
ian culture, other Italian heretics secretly came thither or 
spread their views through their writings. Thus the soil 
was prepared for the development we are to follow. 

Upon the Lutheran Church in Poland, Antitrinitarianism 


1See page 114. 
2 See page 77, 


BEGINNINGS IN POLAND 127 


never made any impression, but in the Reformed Church in 
Little Poland and Lithuania it made such rapid headway 
that for a time it seemed likely to win the day. Young no- 
bles and ministers attending the universities of Germany, 
Switzerland, or Italy learned of the teachings of Servetus 
and brought them home for discussion. ‘The first public at- 
tack on the doctrine of the Trinity was made by a young 
minister named Peter of Goniondz (Gonesius). He had been 
sent abroad to prepare himself for the priesthood, but while 
studying not only had become Protestant, but in Switzerland 
had discovered the teachings of Servetus, and for advocating 
them at Wittenberg he had been forced by Melanchthon to 
leave town. Returning to Poland in 1555 he became a min- 
ister in the Reformed Church, and at the synod of Secemin 
early the following year he made an extended address 
against the doctrine of the Trinity, accepting only the Apos- 
tles’ Creed and denying the Nicene and the Athanasian, and 
offered his views for the judgment of the synod. The 
members present were so much impressed by what Gonesius 
had said that for a report upon his views they sent him 
to Melanchthon at Wittenberg, who strove in vain to con- 
vince him of his error. 

The new views made rapid progress during the next three 
years, and when the subject was again discussed at a synod 
at Pinczow late in 1558, they were found to have won many 
converts among both the clergy and the nobles. Neverthe- 
less Gonesius was condemned by a majority of the synod, 
and having therefore to leave the province of Little Poland 
he went to Lithuania, where now grown bolder in his convic- 
tions, he carried his views yet further at a synod at Brest 
(Brest Litovsk) in 1560, and added to them also some 
Anabaptist objections against infant baptism, and the law- 
fulness of bearing arms. Here too the teachings of Stan- 


128 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


caro and Servetus had prepared the way. ‘The synod, fear- 
ing a schism, imposed silence on him, on pain of excommu- 
nication; but he had already won to his views numerous dis- 
tinguished nobles, and with their support went on his way 
as before. 

By far the most important of these was Jan Kiszka, who 
when a student at Basel had come under the liberalizing 
influence of Chatillon and Curione, and was thus well pre- 
pared for the new views he now heard. He was the second 
most powerful magnate in all Lithuania, was owner of vast 
territories, including four hundred villages and seventy 
cities, and had unbounded influence. He gave his powerful 
support to Gonesius, and made him minister of the church 
in his town of Wengrow, which may thus be set down as the 
first antitrinitarian church in Poland; and he also set up 
a printing press to further the cause of his faith. Even- 
tually he gave to the Antitrinitarians churches under his con- 
trol in Lithuania or Podlachia, or built them new ones, to 
the number of about twenty in all.? 

It was at Pinczow, however, the chief educational center 
of the Reformed Church thus far, that the antitrinitarian 
movement had the most interesting development at this pe- 
riod ; and here, by common consent, gathered so many of those 
that favored it, that before long they came to be known as 
Pinczovians. The Reformed Church here had from the first 


1The religion of a church in Poland depended on that of the owner 
of the estate on which it stood, who was known as its patron; and the 
minister was appointed, or at least must be approved, by him. In some 
cases the patron himself became minister. When he died the churches 
usually followed the faith of the new patron. Thus with the adherence 
of Kiszka to their cause the Antitrinitarians at once gained a numerous 
group of churches; in 1592 these returned to the Reformed Church of 
their new patron. There were many instances of such vicissitudes, and 
the progress of the new faith largely depended upon the extent to 
which the great nobles could be won over to it. 


BEGINNINGS IN POLAND 129 


been much influenced by Anabaptist tendencies, and was thus 
disposed to emphasize Scripture more than the creeds; and 
the long controversy carried on here with Stancaro over the 
doctrine mentioned above 1 had tended to undermine faith in 
the Trinity. Biandrata, who had already been in Poland 
a decade before as court physician to Queen Bona, but had in 
the meantime been in Italy and in Switzerland whence, as 
we have seen,” he had to flee from Calvin in 1558, in that 
Same year returned to Poland and came to Pinczow, where 
he found things going very much to his mind. He heard the 
bold stand taken by Gonesius, and gave him his sympathy. 
Here too he found Lismanino, who had now for some time 
been Protestant, wavering as to the doctrine of the Trinity, 
and won him over to positive disbelief in it. The minister 
of the Pinczow church and the rector of its school were also 
converted to the new views. Biandrata, more advanced than 
the rest in the heresy, soon became virtually the leader of the 
movement; and by using the most cautious methods of pro- 
moting his views, and by taking care to use only the lan- 
guage of Scripture in expressing them, he rapidly won great 
influence among the churches of Little Poland, so that in 
1560 he was chosen elder for the district of Krakow. Calvin 
heard of this with the greatest dismay, and wrote letters to 
persons of influence in Poland, warning them against Bian- 
drata as a most unscrupulous and dangerous heretic; but 
little heed was paid to his warnings. To clear himself from 
any suspicion, Biandrata was, indeed, required to submit to 
the synod a statement of his faith; but he did so in phrases 
of such unimpeachable orthodoxy that all doubts were at 
once dispelled. 

Alciati and Gentile also soon arrived, fresh from their 


1 Page 126. 
2See pages 104, 105. 


130 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


persecution by Calvin,’ and, unhindered by his warnings to 
the churches against them, they attended synods and took 
part in the discussions over doctrine. Lelius Socinus paid 
a flying visit, though perhaps without influencing the course 
of events; and Ochino? later came and for a few months 
added the eloquence of his voice. The Pinczovians published 
two confessions of their faith in 1560 and 1561, were enthusi- 
astic and aggressive, and steadily won adherents among both 
the ministers and the nobles and high officials. The new 
views gained ground rapidly, and the orthodox took alarm. 
Frequent synods were held, with the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity always up for debate; but as the appeal was always from 
the doctrine and language of the Creeds to the doctrine of 
the early Church and the language of Scripture, the ortho- 
dox inevitably had the worst of the argument. Each synod 
showed new gains; and when at the synod of Pinczow in 
1562 the liberals had the majority, and voted that ministers 
should abstain from speaking of the Trinity save in such 
terms as are used in the Scriptures, the day seemed won. 
The next year they condemned the doctrine of the Trinity as 
Sabellian,* and composed a new confession. 

The most effective preacher of the new views in the prov- 
ince of Little Poland was Gregory Paulus. He had accepted 
the views of Gonesius when they were first expressed at the 
synod of 1556, but soon went beyond the Arianism of the 
latter and regarded Christ as simply human, while he also 
adopted various Anabaptist views as to baptism and the con- 
duct of a Christian’s life. He is said to have been the first 
in Poland to attack the doctrine of the Trinity from his 
pulpit at Krakow, where he won over some of the ministers 


1 See pages 105-109. 
2 See page 113. 
3 See page 15. 


BEGINNINGS IN POLAND 131 


and most of his own congregation, whose exemplary lives 
gained them many sympathizers; and backed by the sup- 
port of a powerful patron he was made minister of a 
congregation where crowds came to hear him. While he 
was preaching there one Trinity Sunday against the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, the spire of Trinity church was struck 
by lightning. The event made a great impression in all 
quarters ; but while the orthodox declared it was an evidence 
of divine anger, his friends interpreted it as a sign of divine 
approval of his doctrine. 

Though the orthodox party in Little Poland were now in 
the minority, they were still determined not to yield. Not 
long after the vote of the synod of Pinczow above referred 
to, one of their ministers, Stanislaw Sarnicki, jealous over 
Paulus’s advancement in the church, brought against him 
charges of being an Arian and a follower of Servetus. 
Paulus defended himself successfully against one charge after 
another until at length, when it became evident that nothing 
could be accomplished against him through the existing 
synod, and Paulus’s patron had now died, Sarnicki secretly 
convened an opposition synod solely of his own party, to 
which Paulus and his friends were not invited. It disowned 
the authority of the previous synod, condemned Paulus and 
his followers as Tritheists,t removed him from office, and put 
Sarnicki in his place. Sarnicki had yet others deprived of 
their pulpits ; but Paulus found a new patron and still contin- 
ued to preach. All this was in 1563. Further efforts were 
made to heal the schism, but to no purpose, for the ortho- 
dox would not join in them; so that when the next synod met 
at Mordy later the same year, they would take no part in it. 

1¥For holding that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were each God, but 


that the three were not one. The same charge was made against 
Gentile. 


132 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


It must be remembered, however, that there was as yet no 
separately organized antitrinitarian church; for all that has 
been related was simply an effort to free the Reformed 
Church from the bondage of the Nicene and Athanasian 
Creeds, and to restore the pure scriptural doctrines of early 
Christianity. 

Biandrata had followed Gonesius from Pinczow to Lith- 
uania, where he had secured the powerful patronage of 
Prince Nicholas Radziwill, who angrily resented Calvin’s at- 
tempts to shake his confidence in his guest; and he gave fur- 
ther impulse to the rapidly growing movement in Lithuania. 
Just at this juncture, however, when what the antitrinitarian 
movement most wanted was an able leader, Biandrata was 
invited, in 1563, to go to Transylvania as court physician 
to the ruling prince, John Sigismund. Doubtless appre- 
hensive as to what Calvin might yet succeed in accomplishing 
against him, as well as allured by the attractions of a life 
at court, he accepted the invitation with alacrity. In a 
later chapter we shall find him founding the Unitarian move- 
ment in Transylvania and for a time guiding its destinies, 
and thus playing a yet more important role there than he 
had played in Poland, where Paulus now became the leader 
of the movement. 

The heresy of these early Antitrinitarians in Poland was 
of the mildest sort. They insisted on hardly more than 
that Christ, though he might still be considered God, should 
be regarded as at least in some slight sense inferior to the 
Father; and that in stating their faith Christians should 
abandon the technical terms of the Creeds, and return to the 
simple words of the Scripture and the teaching of the Ante- 
Nicene Church. They accepted the Apostles’ Creed, and 
they were sometimes willing even to profess faith in a sort of 
Trinity—what they called a scriptural Trinity. But, al- 


BEGINNINGS IN POLAND 133 


though this was at bottom all a purely speculative question 
about a fine point in theology—whether the Son were al- 
together equal with the Father or slightly inferior to him— 
the orthodox regarded the struggle with Antitrinitarianism 
as nothing less than a life-and-death matter for their reli- 
gion, and left no stone unturned to overthrow so dangerous 
a heresy. To this end they even joined with the Catholics 
in 1564 to secure a decree of banishment against Antitrini- 
tarians; though, contrary to their expectation, the decree 
was found instead to apply to all foreign Protestants. 
They appealed to the king, and it was not actually enforced 
except against Ochino! and perhaps one or two more; but 
all Protestants were by this act caused to realize their com- 
mon danger at the hands of the Catholics. 

One final attempt, therefore, was made to bring about a 
settlement of their differences. With the sanction of the 
king it was arranged that while the national Diet was sit- 
ting at Piotrkow in 1565 a formal debate between the two 
parties should be held, in the presence of the great number 
of magnates and nobles, as well as of ministers who would be 
in attendance with their patrons, especially since many had 
not yet taken sides in the controversy. The conditions 
of the debate were carefully drawn, disputants were ap- 
pointed to speak for each side, distinguished nobles served 
as presiding officers and secretaries. Arguments and an- 
swers to them were written out and read on both sides; the 
Pinczovians appealing only to the authority of Scripture, 
the orthodox to Scripture, the Fathers, and the Councils. 
When the debate had lasted for fourteen days with no prog- 
ress made toward agreement, the orthodox side suddenly 
broke it off without warning, and, meeting by themselves, 
voted to have nothing more to do with such obstinate and 


1See page 113. 


134 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


incorrigible heretics. They reported their decision to the 
king, and henceforth refused all approaches for union. 

The breach thus made was past all mending, and the 
antitrinitarian party, being thus shut out from any relations 
with the orthodox, were forced to form their own separate 
organization, and all later efforts at reunion proved futile. 
When a few years afterwards a federation of the several 
Protestant churches of Poland was formed at Sandomir 
(the so-called Consensus Sandomiriensis, 1570), its primary 
object was to unite the orthodox bodies on a common basis 
of faith against “the Tritheists, Ebionites,! and Anabap- 
tists,” whose spread had so much disturbed their peace; es- 
pecial care was therefore taken to exclude these from the 
union, and action was repeatedly taken afterwards to make 
the exclusion yet more strict. If it be said, however, that all 
this was a very long time ago, it is proper to remark that 
very recent religious history in America records the closest 
parallels to this action of the sixteenth century in Poland; 
and it sometimes seems as if the orthodox in England and 
America now were little less exclusive toward those who do 
not agree with their doctrines than they were in Poland three 
hundred and fifty years ago. 

1 See page 9. 


CHAPTER XVI 


THE ORGANIZATION AND GROWTH OF THE 
ANTITRINITARIAN CHURCHES IN 
POLAND, 1565-1579 


As was seen at the end of the last chapter, the antitrini- 
tarian party were in 1565 excluded from further connec- 
tion with the orthodox party in the Reformed Church. If 
they were now still to continue their existence and hold and 
extend their faith, instead of gradually dying out and being 
absorbed by other bodies, they had to organize an inde- 
pendent church among themselves; and this they now pro- 
ceeded to do. The new church was completely organized 
that same year, with its own synods, ministers, schools, and 
constitution. It became officially known as the Minor Re- 
formed Church of Poland, though its members preferred to 
call themselves simply Christians; while their opponents, 
desiring to fasten upon them the stigma of hated heresies, 
for the most part called them Arians or Anabaptists. <A 
synod was held at Wengrow at the end of the year, at- 
tended by forty-seven of the clergy from all parts of the 
kingdom, and by fourteen noblemen; and letters of sympathy 
were received from various distinguished ladies and other 
persons, as well as from churches in distant parts of the 
kingdom. The first steps were also taken here for settling 
disputed questions of doctrine and practice; for it was of 
course but natural that having laid aside the old creeds, 


and looking only to Scripture for their authority, they 
135 


136 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


should for a time come to different views from a book which 
after all represents so many different points of view. And 
that the more, since they had as yet no leader who by his 
influence was able to direct the whole church and impress 
on it a common faith or policy. For even before the church 
was fairly organized, the two who might best have held things 
together had removed. Lismanino, having fallen into dis- 
favor with the king, had gone to Prussia where, after a 
brief stay at the court of Duke Albert of Konigsberg, he 
had died in 1563; while in the same year Biandrata, as we 
have seen, had gone to Transylvania; and no one in those 
troublous times had arise to take their places. 

The Minor Church, in fact, seems at this time to have been 
most loosely organized. ‘Such synods as its members held 
had only local influence, and no strong authority, and there 
was no generally accepted standard of belief. Almost the 
sole point on which they were united was the one which had 
caused their separation from the orthodox: as to the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, that the Father was supreme over the 
Son. As soon as ever they tried to state their views on 
other doctrines they fell out with one another. On three 
other heads in particular there were wide differences and 
endless controversies among them: as to the right form of 
administering baptism and Lord’s Supper, as to their belief 
about Christ and the Holy Spirit, and as to their attitude 
toward the civil government and their practical conduct of 
life. These differences had arisen in Poland even before 
Antitrinitarianism, and dated back to the very beginnings 
of the Reformation. 

The first of these questions to trouble the Minor Church 
seriously was the question of baptism. To us this may seem 
a comparatively trivial matter, but to them it was of the 
most vital concern; for had not Jesus said, ‘He that believ- 


ORGANIZATION IN POLAND 137 


eth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not 
shall be damned”? ‘To continue the Catholic practice of 
infant baptism, then, when it had not been commanded or 
even practiced in the New Testament, or to rely upon it as 
baptism at all, seemed to them, as it had to the earlier Ana- 
baptists, to be risking their hope of eternal salvation. Gon- 
esius had therefore attacked infant baptism when he first 
appeared in Lithuania, and a minister named Czechowicz 
had led his followers there in the same direction. A lively 
controversy ensued, which was protracted through six years. 
Soon after the organization of the Minor Church in 1565, 
at the synod of Wengrow, with delegates in attendance from 
all parts of the kingdom, it was prayerfully and earnestly 
debated for six days whether the practice of infant baptism 
was commanded by Scripture. It was concluded that the 
practice should be given up, though some liberty in the mat- 
ter was left to individual consciences, 

The next question to be settled was yet more important, 
and it divided the Minor Church yet more deeply. It was 
the question as to what view they should hold as to the per- 
son of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. It soon came to be ac- 
cepted without serious debate that the Holy Spirit was not 
to be worshiped as God, but the question as to Christ caused 
divisions which almost split the Church. At the synod of 
Lancut (1567) which was called in order, if possible, to bring 
about harmony on this matter, the debate between the Ari- 
ans and those who held that Christ did not exist before his 
birth upon earth, was so angry (the nobles were said with 
one exception to have been more moderate than the minis- 
ters) that the judges adjourned the discussion to a synod 
at Skrzynno later in the same year, and prepared for a 
more formal and orderly discussion by choosing the speakers 
and laying down rules for the conduct of the debate. A 


138 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


hundred and ten nobles and ministers came together from 
all parts of Poland and.Lithuania, besides a great crowd 
from the vicinity, all eager to hear the discussion. No fixed 
agreement was reached as to the doctrines under discussion, 
but it was resolved that the Trinity should be reverently and 
sacredly retained with this condition, that the brethren 
should bear with one another in brotherly love and refrain 
from abusing one another in controversy; that each one 
should follow his own conscience as to baptism and the 
Lord’s Supper; and that they should claim no authority 
over one another in matters of faith, leaving it to God in 
his own time (as Christ had taught) to separate the tares 
from the wheat. This action was for its time a remarkable 
step in the direction of religious tolerance, nor has it been 
surpassed to this day. It did not, however, succeed at once 
in healing the divisions over the belief about Christ; for at 
the time of which we are speaking, the antitrinitarian move- 
ment in Poland was divided over this doctrine into four more 
or less distinct parties, which flourished mostly in separate 
localities. 

The first party was led by a minister named Farnowski 
(Farnovius), and hence they were called Farnovians. Like 
Gonesius they held the Arian view that Christ had existed 
before the creation of the world, and should be worshiped 
as God, though they did not think it right to worship the 
Holy Spirit. They declared that even the religion of the 
Mohammedans or the Jews was better than that of Athana- 
sius. ‘They also opposed infant baptism. Farnowski held 
so stoutly for these views that about 1568 his followers, 
having won the patronage of some distinguished nobles to- 
ward the edge of Hungary, separated from the rest and es- 
tablished their own churches and schools. They held aloof 


ORGANIZATION IN POLAND 139 


for nearly fifty years, but after the death of their leader they 
either rejoined the other Antitrinitarians or else returned 
to the Calvinists. 

Another party was led by Czechowicz, a minister in Lith- 
uania, where he had great influence. After having been for 
some time an Arian, he adopted much more radical views, 
holding that Christ was a man born like other men, but that 
he was sinless and was made God (so Servetus had taught), 
and hence should be worshiped; while those who would not 
worship Christ he called semi-judaizers. He opposed infant 
baptism, and also held with the Anabaptists that Christians 
ought to practice non-resistance, and neither to bear arms 
nor to hold civil office; but at his death he urged his follow- 
ers not to separate from the Minor Church. 

Yet a third party, about Krakow, followed the lead of 
that Gregory Paulus whom we have already met. He too 
denied that Christ had existed before the creation of the 
world, and also denied that he should be worshiped. He 
likewise opposed infant baptism, denied the authority of 
earthly powers, held that Christians should neither bear arms 
nor hold public office, advocated community of goods after 
the manner of the primitive Church, and expected Christ 
soon to appear again to set up the millennium. 

Finally there was a party called Budneans after their 
leader, Simon Budny of Lithuania. He was a man of ex- 
traordinary learning, who in 1572 had published a trans- 
lation of the Bible into Polish which was highly esteemed, 
and two years later a separate one of the New Testament. 
Of these four leaders he came nearest to the views of modern 
Unitarians, for he declared that Christ was naturally born 
like other men, and that to worship him was idolatry; but 
though he too had numerous followers in Lithuania, yet 


140 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


this teaching of his seemed to the churches at large so im- 
pious that he was excommunicated, as were some others who 
held similar views. 

Besides these questions of theological belief, the Minor 
Church during its earlier years was also much distracted by 
another group of questions relating to the practical con- 
duct of the members as followers of Christ. Many of these 
believers were conscientiously in earnest about trying to live 
in this world precisely as Christ had commanded, and to 
make his law of love the rule which should actually regulate 
all their actions. They took his teachings literally, and 
did not try to explain them away when they seemed incon- 
venient or impracticable, but meant to follow them to the let- 
ter; and they took his example and that of his apostles and 
the early Church as a model for their imitation. There- 
fore they did not believe in offering resistance to those who 
did them evil, but bore their wrongs and persecutions with 
Christian patience; they did not believe in bearing arms, for 
that was the first step toward going to war and breaking 
the commandment not to kill; they would not accept civil 
office, and some of them resigned important offices under 
the government, for all government rested upon force in 
place of Christ’s law of love; they would not take oaths, 
since Christ had commanded, “Swear not at all’; they be- 
lieved in sharing their property in common with one another, 
for this had been the practice in the earliest Church at 
Jerusalem. These were of course principles long before 
adopted by the first Anabaptists, and coming by way of 
Moravia they had spread more or less widely in Poland. 
We have already seen that Gonesius, Czechowicz, and 
Paulus held such views as these, and they were especially rife 
in the vicinity of Krakow. These views were by no means 
universally adopted by the Antitrinitarians. Some adopted 


ORGANIZATION IN POLAND 141 


them wholly, some rejected them wholly, and doubtless the 
majority adopted a part and ignored the rest. A local 
congregation, with Paulus for its minister, was founded at 
Krakow in 1569 on these principles, and from that time on 
they were repeatedly discussed in synods at the new cen- 
ter of Rakow. 

The significant thing about the unfortunate divisions of 
which we have spoken is the fact that when the members 
of the new movement found themselves left all at sea after 
having forsaken the old orthodox Creeds, they were so 
pathetically in earnest to draw out of Scripture its true doc- 
trines, and to conduct their daily lives strictly according 
to the teachings of Jesus, let it cost them or their churches 
what it might in the way of persecution by the orthodox, 
or of separation from their brethren. At any cost they 
would remain true to their consciences. These divisions 
threatened for a time, however, to prove fatal to the move- 
ment altogether; and for several years the young church was 
occupied in trying either to find some common ground of 
belief, or if that could not be, then in finding some way of 
getting on together peaceably in spite of different beliefs. 

A little catechism published in 1574 in the name of the 
Anabaptist congregation at Krakow, though probably com- 
posed by Schomann, Paulus’s colleague in the ministry there, 
is of great interest for being the first such work to be 
printed in the history of the movement we are tracing. It 
is supported throughout by texts of Scripture, and teaches 
that Christ was a man who brought eternal life to the world, 
and that he is to be adored and prayed to as our mediator 
with God, and to be followed as an example. The Holy 
Spirit is not a person, but a power of God * bestowed upon 
Christ and men. The taking of oaths, and the resistance 


1So Servetus, page 62. 


142 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


to injuries, are forbidden. Baptism is to be by immersion, 
and to be administered only to adults. These Anabaptists 
in Poland, as elsewhere, tended to run into extravagances, 
and sometimes bordered on the fanatical; but on the whole 
they formed the vital heart and soul of the new church, and 
their influence is to be traced throughout its whole history. 
The strictness of their morals, the gentleness of their lives, 
and their consistent obedience to conscience, never failed to 
win the praise of even those who were most opposed to their 
doctrines, 

When the members and congregations of the Minor Church 
were so divided in opinion during its infancy, and were so 
much opposed to one another just because they were divided 
iN opinion, it must have had the less strength left either to ex- 
tend itself or to repel attacks from without; and there was 
a far greater danger than perhaps was realized that the 
Church might therefore fall quite to pieces, and come to an 
end in less than a generation. Another danger, however, 
which the members did keenly realize and acutely fear, came 
from the relentless and bitter attacks of their enemies. For 
not content with what they had already accomplished by ex- 
cluding the antitrinitarian party from the Reformed Church, 
the orthodox at once laid further plans for overthrowing 
them altogether. Uniting with the Catholics at the Diet of 
Lublin in 1566, they put pressure upon the king to issue 
an edict against Anabaptists and Tritheists (as they called 
the Antitrinitarians), requiring them to leave the realm 
within a month, and they spared no pains to get it strictly 
enforced. ‘They struck first at Filipowski who, as Treas- 
urer of the Palatinate of Krakow, was perhaps the most in- 
fluential of all the Antitrinitarians, and he barely escaped 
with his life. The rest, remembering the fate of Servetus, 
Gentile, and others, scattered like sheep before wolves, some 


ORGANIZATION IN POLAND 143 


going into the country, others seeking shelter with nobles 
powerful enough to protect them. After a time, through 
the influence of one of his highest officials, who was himself 
an Antitrinitarian, the king was persuaded to grant them 
indulgence during his lifetime, and so the storm blew over. 
Nothing daunted by his recent experiences, Filipowski still 
attempted to make peace with the enemy. To this end he 
went with some of the brethren to attend a great synod held 
at Krakow in 1568 by the Lutherans and Calvinists, who 
proposed to unite against Catholic oppression on the one 
hand, and Anabaptist heresies on the other. He powerfully 
urged there that all parties use mutual tolerance as to doc- 
trines on which they differed, and consent to live together in 
Christian love. The orthodox would not yield an inch; one 
notable convert was gained there, however, in the person of 
Andrew Dudicz. He was a Hungarian noble who, for his 
talents, learning, and the distinguished part he played in 
public affairs, was one of the most celebrated men of his 
age. He had been councillor to three emperors, and bishop 
of three sees in succession, had been one of the most prom- 
inent delegates to the Council of Trent, and had been sent 
on various important embassies. Having become Protestant, 
he had joined the Reformed Church at Krakow; but when he 
observed with what bitterness its leaders spoke of their op- 
ponents, and how they rejected the peaceable advances 
made by Filipowski, he left them for the Minor Church, 
whose doctrines also approved themselves to him as more 
reasonable, and became patron of its congregation at 
Schmiegel in the province of Great Poland, where he built 
them a church and school, which he supported till his death. 
Though again rebuffed, the Antitrinitarians still hungered 
for religious fellowship which they might enjoy while yet 
preserving full liberty of belief. They were not a little 


144 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


cheered therefore when they heard the next year (1569), 
through the reports of a traveler, that the Anabaptists of 
Moravia, among whom we have already found our exiles 
from Italy and Switzerland hospitably received,’ agreed with 
them in all respects except as to the holding of public office, 
which was against the Anabaptist principles; and since 
much was related of their singular piety, charity, and purity 
of morals, Filipowski, with several of the brethren, now 
undertook a mission to the Moravians, hoping to bring 
about some form of union with them. Here again they 
were doomed to disappointment; for although the Moravian 
brethren were found to be otherwise all that had been told of 
them, they were such ardent defenders of the received doc- 
trine of the Trinity that they did not scruple to call their 
visitors heathen for denying it. The brethren therefore re- 
turned in deep discouragement, and most of the ministers of 
Little Poland gave up preaching. 

A turn in their affairs for the better, however, was unex- 
pectedly to come from another quarter, through the death 
of the king. Sigismund Augustus, though nominally a 
Catholic, was at heart much inclined toward the Reforma- 
tion, having twenty years before been influenced in that di- 
rection by Lismanino;* and there were indications that he 
inwardly favored the antitrinitarian party in the Reformed 
Church. He had taken so much interest in the discussions 
of the doctrine of the Trinity that he got his secretary, 
Modrzewski, to draw up an account of the differences be- 
tween the two parties, with the arguments on both sides, 
hoping to find some way to bring the two factions together. 
The manuscript of this book (the famous Sylv@) acciden- 
tally fell into the hands of one of the orthodox party, who 


1See pages 68, 104, 108, 113, 114, 115. 
2See page 126. 


ORGANIZATION IN POLAND 145 


found it so favorable to the Antitrinitarians that he carried 
it away, and would not return it, lest it get into print and 
make converts; and it was therefore not published until 
twenty-five years later. Had the king lived, the Minor 
Church might have had much to hope from him; but he died 
in 1572, and his dynasty thus became extinct. The nobles 
took advantage of this occasion to make sure of securing 
their full rights under any future rulers. They drew up a 
new law, making it a condition of the election of any new 
king, that he should take his oath to preserve peace among 
the religious sects, and they sacredly pledged themselves 
and their posterity, that, though differing from one another 
as to religion (dissidentes * de religione), they would keep the 
peace with one another, would not shed one another’s blood, 
nor punish one another in any way, nor assist a magistrate 
in doing so, and would with all their might oppose any one 
who on any pretext should attempt such a thing. There 
were numerous representatives of the Minor Church in the 
Diet which passed this compact (the celebrated pax Dissi- 
dentium, 1573), and they became parties to it along with 
the rest; and although its provisions were later violated, 
and were eventually ignored altogether, nevertheless it be- 
came a fundamental law of the land, and secured the Minor 
Church an existence of nearly a century. 

Despite the persecutions they had suffered and the dan- 
gers they had run, the number of adherents of the Minor 
Church continued large; and under the protection of the 
new law it now increased rapidly, especially among the edu- 
cated nobility ; for they, not having been so strictly trained 
up in the subtleties of theology as the clergy had been, felt 
the less devoted to the teachings of the creeds; while, like all 
Protestants of that period, they were keenly interested in the 


1 Hence the term, Dissidents, later applied only to non-Catholics. 


146 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


study of the Scriptures, and as they read those they could 
not but see that they contained little enough to support the 
peculiar doctrine of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. 
The Diet of the kingdom was said to be filled with ‘‘Arians,” 
and their beliefs found wide acceptance among all classes ex- 
cept the ignorant peasantry who, being little better than 
serfs, were little regarded by any of the Protestant churches. 
Within a generation churches were established in every part 
of the kingdom, from Danzig to Kijow (Kief), and from 
northern Lithuania to the Carpathians ; but most numerously 
in Little Poland and Lithuania, while in Great Poland they 
were few and widely scattered. 

No mean factor in the growth of the Minor Church was 
the city of Rakow, founded in 1569 by a powerful magnate 
named Sieninski. Though a Calvinist, he offered the resi- 
dents of his new town, among other advantages, that of per- 
fect freedom of religious worship. Many of the Antitrini- 
tarians therefore, being apprehensive of persecution where 
they were, came from all parts of the kingdom and settled 
here; among them Gregory Paulus who, having been driven 
from Krakow, founded a church at Rakow which eventually 
became the leading one in all Poland. The new congrega- 
tion grew rapidly, and its preachers were men of the great- 
est reputation. The Anabaptists regarded Rakow as al- 
most a new Jerusalem, and it came to be looked on as an 
especial object of divine providence. For a time rather ex- 
treme Anabaptist views were rife here, and in the church 
school all scholars were required to learn some manual trade. 
Numerous synods were held at Rakow, and it became for 
sixty years or more the center and source of all the main 
influences in the Minor Church. ‘The more important part 
of its history, however, belongs in a later chapter. 

We have now reached a point in our history where this 


ORGANIZATION IN POLAND 147 


church seemed in a way to become fairly established. While 
disputes on the points we have mentioned were still rife 
among its members well on into the seventeenth century, yet 
they had now ceased to be a source of serious danger to the 
church’s existence; for however much in earnest the mem- 
bers might be over their doctrines, the principle of mutual 
tolerance and charity was firmly established and generally 
accepted among them. Although still hated as before by 
both Catholics and Protestants, they now stood under the 
equal protection of the law which was in the interest of all 
the churches alike, and the age of civil persecution seemed 
past. One thing was still needful, if they were to have a 
vigorous life and a wide growth under these favorable con- 
ditions; and that was a leader who could do for them what 
Luther and Calvin had done for their churches: organize 
their system of thought, lead them in counsel, and direct 
them in action. Such a leader soon appeared in the person 
of Faustus Socinus. 


CHAPTER XVII 


FAUSTUS SOCINUS AND THE FULL DEVELOP- 
MENT OF SOCINIANISM IN POLAND, 
1579-1638 


At the time when, as we saw in the last chapter, the Pol- 
ish Antitrinitarians most needed leadership, the needed leader 
appeared in the person of Faustus Socinus (in Italian, 
Fausto Sozzini). He organized their beliefs into a consis- 
tent system purged of extravagances and extreme positions ; 
he ably represented them in their controversies with their 
opponents both Catholic and Protestant; and although a 
foreigner he so won their confidence and love, and so 
stamped himself upon their movement, that it eventually 
came to be known after him as Socinianism, by which name, 
for the sake of convenience, we shall henceforth refer to it. 
Socinus was born at Siena, Italy, in 1539, and was nephew 
of Lelius Socinus, whom we found as one of the Antitrin- 


1 The Socinians themselves did not use this name, or at least not until 
long afterwards. Their official name, as we have seen, was the Minor 
. Reformed Church of Poland. They liked best to cali themselves merely 
Christians, or Catholic Christians, or Polish Brethren. The name of 
Unitarians, borne by those of like faith in Transylvania, later became 
attached to them, and at length they were glad to accept it. To the 
end they never ceased to protest against the name of Arians, or of Ana- 
baptists, by which their enemies insisted on calling them; for the for- 
mer of these names stood for views which we have seen that they 
rejected early in their history, and the latter was more or less associ- 
ated with fanatical social and religious views with which many of them 
had little sympathy. 

148 


SOCINIANISM FULLY DEVELOPED 149 


itarians at Ziirich in the time of Calvin. When he was but 
two years old his father died, leaving him to be brought 
up without regular education, as he never ceased to regret ; 
and the law, in which many of his family had distinguished 
themselves, never attracted him. Soon after he became of 
age, the Sozzini family fell under suspicion of being Prot- 
estant heretics. One of them was seized by the Inquisition, 
and the rest fled, among them Faustus, who for some 
two years lived mostly at Lyon, though he was at Geneva 
long enough to become a member of the Italian church 
there. While he was at Lyon, his uncle Lelius died, leav- 
ing him his manuscripts, most of them on religious sub- 
jects. These may well have planted in his mind seeds that 
were to ripen later, but for a time they seem to have made 
no impression upon him; for he returned to Italy the next 
year, and from 1563 to 1575 lived the life of a courtier at 
Florence, in the service of Isabella de’ Medici, daughter of 
the Grand-Duke Cosimo of Tuscany, remaining outwardly a 
good Catholic. During this period he published a book On 
the Authority of Holy Scripture which was highly esteemed 
by both Catholics and Protestants, was translated into sev- 
eral languages, and continued in circulation for over a cen- 
tury and a half. 

Upon the death of his patroness Socinus refused all in- 
ducements to remain longer at court, left Italy never to re- 
turn, and went to Basel which was then a place of consider- 
able religious freedom, and for three years applied himself 
to the study of religious subjects, chiefly the Bible. While 
there he wrote a treatise showing much independence of 
thought, On Christ the Savior, in which he defended the view 
that Christ is our Savior not because he suffered for our sins, 
but because he showed us the way to eternal salvation, which 


1See page 114. 


150 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


consists in our imitating him; and that he did not suffer to 
satisfy God’s justice nor to appease his wrath. This view 
was in sharp contrast to that then generally held, and al- 
though the book was at first circulated only in manuscript, 
and was not published until years later in Poland, it at once 
established his reputation as an able and independent the- 
ologian. ‘The result was that he was soon urged to come to 
Transylvania to assist in a discussion then going on there 
over the question whether Christians should worship Christ. 
The account of that discussion will be found in a later chap- 
ter: when it was done Socinus proceeded to Poland, where he 
arrived early in 1579. Here he was to spend twenty-five 
fruitful years in promoting the religious movement whose 
history we are following. He was now forty years old. 
Coming to the capital at Krakow, Socinus found in the 
Anabaptist congregation there a company of Christians with 
whom he so much sympathized that the following year, at a 
synod at Rakow, he applied for admission to their member- 
ship. Now while he had been baptized in infancy, the new 
church insisted that before joining it he must receive adult 
baptism. This he declined to have done, for he thought 
that it would be an admission that baptism was necessary 
to a Christian, which he did not at all believe, though he did 
not object to the practice for any that wished it for them- 
selves. He was also found to disagree with them on several 
other important doctrines. The church therefore rejected 
his application for membership and refused to admit him to 
the Lord’s Supper. He took no offense, however, but con- 
tinued to worship with them, attend their synods, defend 
them against their opponents in controversy, and take part 
in their doctrinal discussions. It was in these last that he 
did the most valuable service to the cause by bringing about 
harmony of opinion. For he had a profound acquaintance 


SOCINIANISM FULLY DEVELOPED 151 


with the Bible, to which appeal was always made on these 
occasions, and was an accomplished debater; and best of all 
he invariably kept his temper in controversy and never 
abused his opponents (as was then generally done, even in 
religious debate), but instead preserved the manners of a 
courtier, and relied upon the calm appeal to reason. 

His influence with the churches was not a little increased 
when, having been forced by threats of prosecution to leave 
Krakow, and having accepted the hospitality of a nobleman 
in the vicinity, he presently married his host’s only daughter, 
and thus became connected with many persons of great 
influence. At two synods in 1584 he argued powerfully 
against the belief of many who expected Christ soon to ap- 
pear again upon earth, and also in favor of the worship of 
Christ, without which, he maintained, we should be no better 
than Jews or even atheists. At the request of the churches 
he replied to attacks that had been made upon their doctrine 
of the unity of God by professors in the Jesuit college at 
Posen. He confuted the Arians; and the number of those 
who came to agree with him steadily increased, especially 
among the younger men. At length, at the synod of Brest 
in Lithuania in 1588, where he discussed the main points of 
doctrine, it was clear that he had won over all but a very few 
of the most obstinate, and henceforth he was the ac- 
knowledged leader of the thought of the Minor Church. 

From this time on for fifty years Socinianism had a bril- 
liant career in Poland. Rakow was its capital and the cen- 
ter of its influence. Its Calvinistic proprietor became in- 
terested in Socinianism and instituted a public discussion 
of doctrines between Calvinists and Socinians, and as a re- 
sult of this he joined the latter in 1600. Two years later he 
established a school there. Its teachers were able scholars 
with reputation throughout Europe. It grew rapidly and 


152 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


became famous. Young men were sent to it from both Cath- 
olic and Protestant sources until it had about a thousand 
students, nearly a third of them from the nobility. Rakow 
became known as “the Sarmatian Athens.” So many came 
here even from Germany that special services in the German 
language were held for them. In this school young men 
were trained up for the Socinian ministry under teachers 
whose fame survives among scholars to this day. A fine 
press was also removed from Krakow and set up here, and 
on it were printed large numbers of works by Socinian writ- 
ers, whose faith was thus spread in print over all Europe. 
General synods for all Poland were held here every year, 
and ministers and nobles from all parts of the kingdom came 
to attend them. 

There were also churches in almost all the other impor- 
tant cities, and every large church had a school by its side, 
conducted by one of the younger clergy. 

Although Socinianism was the least numerous of the three 
forms of Protestantism in Poland, none had a more distin- 
guished company of adherents. We have already noted to 
what extent it had spread among the nobility. One of their 
apologists writing later in an age of persecution fills six 
pages with a list of early Antitrinitarians and later Socin- 
ians who had held public offices of the highest distinction in 
the kingdom, and there were said to be none of the greatest 
families in Poland or Lithuania, even those of dukes and 
princes, but were related to some of the Socinians. It is 
even true that for a short time one who had been brought up 
in the Socinian faith sat upon the throne of Russia (1605- 
1606), the so-called False Demetrius, pretended son of the 
late Czar. <A Catholic historian of Polish literature bears 
witness that the Socinians were intellectually the most ad- 
vanced, cultivated, and talented of all the Polish dissidents, 


SOCINIANISM FULLY DEVELOPED 153 


and that they left an enduring impression on the history of 
Polish literature. 

The official records of the Minor Church, though long 
jealously guarded, have now long since vanished from sight, 
so that it is impossible to say just how widely the Church 
extended. But we know of a synod at Rakow in 1612 which 
was attended by 400 delegates, and of another in 1618 by 
459, and the names of 115 churches are still on record; so 
that it would probably not be unfair to estimate that first 
and last there were as many as 300 Socinian congregations, 
though many of these were prematurely crushed out by per- 
secution, or were lost through a change of patron. Their 
form of government was practically the same as that of the 
Reformed Church. The churches were organized into syn- 
ods composed of ministers and lay delegates. There was 
probably one of these for each palatinate or county, perhaps 
one for each province, and over them all a general synod 
for the whole kingdom which met at Rakow for a week or two 
each year. 

Each synod elected a superintendent for its own district, 
who appointed ministers and teachers for the local churches, 
assigned them their locations or removed them, and also vis- 
ited the churches each year. He was assisted by elders, both 
lay and clerical. Annual synods were held in each palati- 
nate and local synods more frequently if occasion required. 
At these everything was attended to that concerned the 
welfare and growth of the church. Ministers were ordained 
and teachers named for the home churches, and missionaries 
appointed to spread the faith in other countries; salaries 
for ministers and teachers were voted out of a common fund 
raised by apportionment among the churches; aid was voted 
for promising young men to study for the ministry at Ra- 


1In that case, not so very many less than the Reformed. 


154 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


kow or at foreign universities; grants were made to be 
distributed by the deacons to widows and orphans or others 
in need; pensions were granted to retired ministers and 
teachers; aid was sent to needy brethren living abroad or 
banished on account of their faith; differences which had 
arisen between the members, if they could not be privately 
settled, were adjusted here, for the Socinians, following the 
teaching of Jesus, never resorted to the law courts except as 
a last resort; breaches of morality received earnest atten- 
tion; and the editing and publishing of books which might 
spread the faith were provided for. Any matters which 
could not be settled in the local synods were carried up to 
the general synod. 

_ It was from these synods, also, that those proposals for 
union with other churches proceeded, which were repeatedly 
made by the Socinians, and as often rejected by the ortho- 
dox. Socinus had never desired to be the founder of a new 
sect, and he never claimed to be anything more than merely 
a Christian; and one of his most interesting writings is 
an address in which he endeavored to persuade the mem- 
bers of the rapidly dwindling Reformed Church of their 
duty as Christians to join in one free national church with 
“those who are falsely and unjustly called Arians and 
Ebionites.” We have already noticed an early attempt to 
unite with the Moravian Anabaptists. A similar move for 
union with the Reformed Church was made in 1580, when 
representatives of the Minor Church went to a Reformed 
synod at Lewartow hoping for a conference on the subject; 
but the Reformed refused to have anything to do with them, 
“since they were followers of Ebion, Arius, and Paul of Sam- 
osata, who had long ago been excommunicated from the 
Church.” Another attempt at union was made at Rakow in 


SOCINIANISM FULLY DEVELOPED 155 


1598, but the conference which took place came to nothing, 
whereupon Socinus issued the address above referred to. 

A few years later, when it was becoming evident that 
Catholics, instigated by the Jesuits, were beginning a sys- 
tematic policy of attack upon all Protestants, efforts were 
for the third time renewed for union with the Reformed. 
From 1611 on several conferences with the Reformed were 
held, which for a time gave promise of success, on a basis of 
mutual tolerance of differences of belief. But the Jesuits 
had poisoned the minds of the Reformed against the Socin- 
lans as enemies of all Christendom, and the Reformed re- 
fused to consider any union unless the Socinians would 
agree to their doctrines as to the Trinity, the atonement, 
and baptism; while one of their theologians published a book 
to show that the two could no more unite than fire and water. 
Nor did an attempt in 1619 at a purely political alliance 
between them against the Catholics succeed any better. 
Not until too late did the Reformed discover that only by 
all standing together could the Protestants of Poland have 
prevented the destruction which at length overwhelmed them 
all. 

Prospects for union with the Mennonites of Holland might 
have seemed brighter, for these were descended from the 
Anabaptists of earlier times,’ and had many points in com- 
mon with the Socinians; yet the latter’s proposal in 1612 
was declined as impracticable. Twenty years later the Re- 
monstrants of Holland, also, who had lately protested 
against the doctrines of Calvin, and were then suffering bit- 
ter persecution and exile in consequence, gave ground for 
yet brighter hopes of union; but when this was proposed 
to them in 1632 it was nevertheless refused—perhaps be- 


1See page 46. 


156 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


cause the Remonstrants had already been accused by their 
enemies of being Socinians in disguise, and were unwilling 
to do anything which could be taken for an admission of the 
charge. Thus the Socinians were on every hand persist- 
ently shut off from all religious fellowship; and even as late 
as 1645, when a friendly conference of all religious per- 
suasions was called together at Thorn (the Colloquiwm 
Charitatvvum), and when danger from the Catholic quarter 
was more threatening than ever, they were still refused ad- 
mission to it among the other Protestants. 

The Socinians showed the depth and sincerity of their 
devotion to their faith not only by suffering ostracism and 
persecution for it, but also by their zealous and persistent 
efforts to spread it among others both at home and abroad. 
To the very end of their existence in Poland they were 
active and wonderfully zealous propagandists. Their fa- 
vorite missionary method at home was through public 
debates, if these could be arranged with their opponents; 
and they had such confidence in their cause that though 
others might shrink from debate, they themselves never did. 
They preferred to have these debates conducted like the 
discussions of learned men, under prescribed rules and forms, 
with theses and antitheses, objections and refutations, made 
by the debaters in due order, and preferably submitted in 
writing. These would then be printed for people to read 
and digest at leisure. Thus they depended far more on rea- 
son and argument than on mere eloquence or passion. The 
most famous of all these discussions was one with the Jes- 
uits. It was carried on entirely by the pen, lasted from 
1603 to 1618, and was comprised in more than twenty 
printed books. In these discussions the attitude of the 
Socinians was never timid or apologetic, but habitually bold 
and aggressive; yet their imitation of the habit of Socinus 


SOCINIANISM FULLY DEVELOPED 157 


in carrying on their discussions with good temper and in 
mild speech set a new and good example, and won praise 
even from their opponents. They are said also to have won 
many converts through the fine spirit that prevailed in their 
discussions among themselves at their synods. Their use of 
the printing press has already been spoken of, and it made 
Socinianism well known and its influence greatly feared all 
over Europe. The number of religious books they pub- 
lished was astonishing,’ and a great flood of writings came 
forth in answer to them, from Catholics, Lutherans, and 
Calvinists. 

The Socinians also made liberal appropriations for send- 
ing missionaries into the other countries of Europe. It was 
only in rare cases that these dared venture upon public 
preaching, for freedom of worship did not yet exist any- 
where west of Poland; and more than once these mission- 
aries were arrested, imprisoned, or banished for trying to 
propagate their faith, and were released only on condition 
of ceasing to do so in future. Their most successful 
method, therefore, was to send abroad their most polished 
and cultivated scholars, who would form influential acquaint- 
ances, converse with them on religious subjects, put Socinian 
books into their hands, and thus influence the opinions of 
the leaders of thought. In this way a far-reaching in- 
fluence was early exerted in Holland; and such missionaries 
went also to Germany, France, and England. Of course, 
with laws against heresy being as they were, such a thing as 
establishing Socinian churches abroad was entirely out. of 
the question. 

The most effective of these silent missionaries were the 
young men who went to the western universities to continue 
the education they had begun at Rakow in preparation for 


1A very incomplete list shows some 500 separate works or editions. 


158 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the ministry. They thus made secret converts among the 
students at Leiden, Strassburg, Heidelberg, and most of 
all at Altorf,' which for a few years early in the seventeenth 
century was a veritable hot-bed for propagating Socinians. 
The Rector of this school, Dr. Soner, had been converted 
to Socinianism by some Polish students at Leiden when he 
was studying there, and he kept up a correspondence with 
the brethren in Poland. Socinian students from there 
flocked to his lectures, and with his encouragement made 
many converts among the Germans and others studying 
there. These young Socinians formed a secret society 
among themselves, and after the manner of the learned 
academies of the time they gave themselves fictitious Latin 
names, and thus the better kept their secret. In 1616 how- 
ever their secret was discovered by the authorities, and they 
were arrested and for a time imprisoned; after which a few 
recanted, though most were expelled and returned to Po- 
land. One result of this foreign propaganda was that not 
a few of the most eminent Socinian ministers and scholars 
in Poland and Transylvania were men of foreign birth 
and education who had been converted by these means, and 
had then been obliged to remove thither to enjoy their faith 
in peace. 

Long before Socinianism had reached the widespread influ- 
ence which we have described, Socinus himself had died. His 
young wife had early been taken from him, leaving him only 
an infant daughter; his estate in Italy had been confiscated, 
and now, broken in fortune, health, and spirit, he retired 
to the home of a friendly noble at Luclawice in the foot- 
hills of the Carpathians, where he died in 1604, aged sixty- 


1 Here stood a famous gymnasium which in 1623 became a university. 
In 1809 it united with that at Erlangen. 


SOCINIANISM FULLY DEVELOPED 159 


five. Legend says that his grave was later opened and his 
ashes scattered by fanatics, but the place of his burial is 
known, and a battered monument still remains to mark the 
spot. During these last years he was surrounded by sym- 
pathetic friends, most prized among them being Stoinski, the 
eloquent and scholarly young minister of the place. Socinus 
occupied his time in writing books, and in making visits far 
and wide among the churches. His last occupation was in 
trying to make a systematic statement of Christian doctrine 
for the use of the churches. Together with Stoinski, he had 
been requested to revise the Catechism of 1574 then in use, 
and he left behind him unfinished a brief system of instruc- 
tion in the Christian religion in the form of a Catechism 
(Christiane Religionis brevissima Institutio), as well as the 
fragment of another Catechism. 

Stoinski died the year after Socinus, but their unfinished 
work was continued and completed after their death by 
Schmalz, Moskorzowski, and Volkel, and was published in . 
Polish in 1605 at Rakow (Latin, Racovia), whence it came 
to be known as the Racovian Catechism. This little book, 
which passed through six editions in Latin, one in German, 
two in Dutch, and two in English (not to mention the chil- 
dren’s Catechism based upon it and published in Polish, 
Latin, and German), was in print for more than two cen- 
turies, was very widely circulated throughout Europe, and 
was answered or attacked numberless times by orthodox 
theologians, who seemed to suffer acute fear lest its teach- 
ings should spread in their churches. Beyond doubt it did 
more than any other book ever published (except the New 


1It has in recent years been proposed to raise a fund and erect a 
suitable memorial on the spot, but the scheme was interrupted by the 
‘war in Europe. 


160 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Testament itself) to spread Unitarian ways of thinking 
about religion. Its teaching therefore deserves special at- 
tention. 

The key-note to the whole system of Socinian doctrine 
seems to lie in the text: “This is life eternal, that they 
might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom 
thou hast sent”; and the Christian religion is defined at 
the outset as a way of attaining this eternal life, divinely 
revealed in the Scriptures (especially the New Testament), 
which certain proofs show to be true, which are easy to un- 
derstand, and which contain all things necessary for salva- 
tion. Throughout the book, therefore, the proof of its 
teaching is drawn from the Bible, and only in a few in- 
stances are orthodox doctrines opposed on the ground that 
they are unreasonable. 

Man is by nature mortal, and the only way for him to 
gain eternal life is by knowledge of God and Christ. It 
is of the utmost importance, then, that this knowledge be 
correct, else our hopes of eternal life would be imperiled. 
We must therefore know that God is only one in person, for 
belief in the Trinity may easily destroy the faith in one 
God; and we must also know that Christ is by nature a true 
man, though not a mere man, for he was miraculously born. 
On these two main heads there are long arguments against 
the orthodox view. 

We must also acknowledge Christ as God, being one who 
has divine power over us, and one to whom we are bound to 
show divine honor in adoration, and whose aid we can ask in 
any need; adoring him for his sublime majesty, and seeking 
aid of his divine power. Those who do not do this are not 
Christians. Jesus was sinless, and wrought miracles. He 
rose from the dead, thus assuring us that we shall rise also; 
his resurrection is therefore much more important than his 


SOCINIANISM FULLY DEVELOPED 161 


death, though by dying for us sinful men he showed us the 
way to return to God and be reconciled to him. 

The Holy Spirit is not a person in the godhead, but a 
power of God bestowed on men from on high. 

There is no such thing as original sin, or predestination ; 
and men are justified in the sight of God only through their 
faith in Christ, who now lives in heaven, making continual 
intercession for us, whence he will come to judge the living 
and the dead. 

There is only one sacrament, the Lord’s Supper, which is 
¢, memorial rite. Baptism is only an outward rite by which 
converts to Christianity publicly acknowledge their faith in 
Christ. Infant baptism is unscriptural, though those that 
practice it without trying to force it on others should not 
be condemned or persecuted. The Church is a company of 
Christians who hold and profess sound doctrine. 

These teachings, which are all given in the ordinary cat 
echism form of question and answer, are those that would 
seem most striking to a modern reader of the first edition of 
the Racovian Catechism. Later editions greatly enlarged 
and somewhat changed this first edition; but these teachings 
remained substantially as given. It may be noted that the 
Catechism is in close harmony with the Apostles’ Creed, so 
far as that goes; and indeed Socinians were always wont to 
appeal to that as against the later creeds. It is note- 
worthy also that, except for the subject of baptism, little is 
found of the peculiar teachings of the Anabaptists or the 
Arians, though in limited localities or under individual 
ministers Socinians still adhered to these. If the Catechism 
is far from being orthodox, it is also far from modern Uni- 
tarianism. Yet the root of the matter was there; for in its 
freedom from the authority of the creeds, in its free and 
scholarly way of explaining scripture, in its appeal to 


162 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


reason and its emphasis on right conduct (both of these 
much more emphasized in the later editions), and in its tol- 
erance of different opinions, it came close to the fundamental 
principles of the Unitarianism of the twentieth century. 

The true character and worth of a religion, however, can 
not be learned from its catechism or its creeds, any more 
than the character and worth of a man from his skeleton. 
If we would truly know what Socinianism was, we must con- 
sider not only its theory but its practice. We should need 
to attend its services of religious worship, hear its sermons, 
hymns, and prayers, observe the earnestness and devotion 
of the people to their religion, and above all note what ef- 
fect it had upon their daily life, and what kind of char- 
acters 1t produced. Unfortunately we can not do that, 
for as we shall soon see, Socinianism in Poland came after a 
century to a tragic end. Yet fortunately there have been 
preserved to us some detailed accounts of their church cus- 
toms, and many comments upon their characters. We know, 
therefore, that the Socinians, both in Poland and in exile, 
were a very sincerely devout people. ‘They observed Sun- 
day very strictly, holding two or three services on Sundays 
and holy days, to which the members often came from long 
distances ; and there was also preaching on Wednesdays and 
Fridays, and frequent days of fasting and prayer were ob- 
served. Every nobleman’s house had its chapel, and do- 
mestic worship with scripture and prayer was held twice 
daily. They held the Lord’s Supper very sacred, and 
counted it a great deprivation to be kept away from it; and 
they emphasized the importance of private devotional life. 
When members of their church therefore were scattered or 
distant from church privileges, great pains were taken to 
send them ministers from time to time to preach and ad- 
minister the Lord’s Supper. 


SOCINIANISM FULLY DEVELOPED 163 


Their moral standards also were very strict and strictly 
observed; and. it was a regular part of their church disci- 
pline to watch carefully over one another’s characters and 
admonish one another like brothers and sisters. If a mem- 
ber did wrong and did not show repentance for it, the mat- 
ter was dealt with in the church meeting; and if he persisted 
he was forbidden to come to the Lord’s Supper... Though 
they did not adopt the Anabaptist doctrines into their Cate- 
chism, many of them followed the Anabaptist traditions in 
the conduct of their lives. Indeed they strove to make their 
churches as ‘nearly as possible like the first Christian 
churches, and they tried literally to follow the teachings of 
Jesus. They looked watchfully after the wants of their 
poor, the widows, and the orphans. They would not fight, 
nor go to law, nor avenge injuries, nor hold serfs; they were 
peaceable, patient, gentle, forgiving, unostentatious, and 
they lived exemplary lives. In many respects they resem- 
bled the Quakers, though their more extreme views and prac- 
tices were not adhered to always and by all their members, 
and tended to become modified in the course of time; yet a 
clear Anabaptist strain always persisted, and to the very 
end some refused to bear arms or to hold civil office. This 
is the general testimony of both their friends and their foes. 
We have already seen how eager they were to spread among 
others the faith which they held; and we shall see in the 
next chapter how ready they were to suffer the loss of every- 
thing rather than forsake it. In fact, a recent Catholic 
historian says that Polish “Arianism” was the most inter- 
esting page in Polish religious history, and that no other 
confession in Poland can count so high a percentage of 
authors in the seventeenth century; and that one reason 
why their numbers did not become larger was that their 
demands were too strict. 


CHAPTER XVIII 


THE DECLINE AND FALL OF SOCINIANISM, 
AND ITS BANISHMENT FROM POLAND, 
1638-1660 


The last chapter told the happy story of how Socinian- 
ism, in spite of many obstacles, overcame them all and rose 
to a position of widespread influence in Poland. All the 
while it was gaining strength, however, clouds were gathering 
below the horizon which were eventually to break into a 
storm which should overwhelm in ruin not only Socinianism 
but at length all of Polish Protestantism. We must now go 
back to trace this other story from its beginning. 

The rise of Protestantism in Poland reached its height 
with the Union of Sandomir? (Consensus Sandomiriensis) 
in 1570, and the power of the Catholics in the affairs of the 
nation was then at a low ebb, with only a minority in 
either house of the Diet. Shortly after this the orthodox 
Protestants proposed to put all “Arians” under the ban; but 
to this the Catholics would not consent, since it would seem 
to imply an increased recognition of the other Protestants. 
This Union was repeatedly confirmed among the orthodox 
Protestant bodies for twenty-five years, though the Minor 
Church was persistently excluded from it. Further than 
this however, orthodox opposition no longer attempted to 
go. The trouble was instead to come from the Catholic 
side, and it was initiated under Cardinal Hosius, a man of 


1 See page 134. 
164 


SUPPRESSION OF SOCINIANISM 165 


great learning and of the most admirable personal charac- 
ter, but an extreme Catholic whose convictions led him to 
subordinate every other interest to the welfare of the church, 
and to urge that it would be to the detriment of the church 
for the government to keep any promise it might have made 
to protect the Protestant heretics in their rights, when they 
deserved to be utterly exterminated. 

The order of Jesuits now comes into the story. It had 
been founded in 1539, and had ere long come to devote it- 
self especially to overthrowing Protestantism; and in 1564 
Cardinal Hosius invited Jesuits to come to Poland for this 
purpose. They came in large numbers from Spain and 
Germany and began opening schools all over the land, some 
fifty of them in all, and amply endowed. All that the Prot- 
estant nobles seemed to realize of what was going on was 
that here were better schools than they had known before, 
taught by talented scholars and polished gentlemen, many 
of them of noble birth; and they therefore soon began send- 
ing their sons to these new schools for their education. 
What the Jesuits intended was that these young Polish no- 
bles, after having been kept for some years under their in- 
struction, should many of them be won over to the Catholic 
faith, so that in a generation or two (and they were always 
willing to work on long lines) most of the ruling classes 
of Poland would again be back in the fold of the church. 
So it turned out, for within two generations they had all 
Poland securely in their net, and were prepared to draw it 
whenever they found the time ripe. Their policy was to win 
the confidence and favor of the upper classes without at first 
revealing their purpose, then to push against the Protestants 
in general whenever a favorable opportunity presented itself, 
and finally to divide the Protestants against one another. 
This last purpose was all too easily accomplished, for the 


166 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


orthodox were ready enough to attack the “Arians,” and 
were glad repeatedly to join with the Catholics against 
those heretical Protestants as enemies of all Christendom. 
It was not until too late, when they had themselves fallen 
victims to this policy, that it dawned upon them that they 
had been used as tools to help carry out the far-sighted 
Jesuit plan for overthrowing all Polish Protestantism. 
The tolerant King Sigismund Augustus II died in 1572, 
as we have seen, and Henry of Valois who succeeded him wore 
his Polish crown but a few months before going to receive 
a more shining one in France as Henry III. The election 
to the throne next fell (1574) to Stephen Bathori, Prince 
of Transylvania, whom we shall later meet in connection 
with the history of Unitarianism in that country. When 
elected he was supposed to be a Protestant, but soon after- 
wards he openly professed the Catholic faith and married 
the sister of the late king, who was under Jesuit influence. 
The Jesuits therefore won his support, although through the 
thirteen years of his reign he maintained the liberties of the 
Protestants, and resisted all pressure to break his corona- 
tion oath to them, declaring that he was king only of peo- 
ple, but not of their consciences, which were subject to God 
alone.* Yet even in his reign the Catholic reaction began, 
and in the strongly Catholic capital of Krakow preaching 
against heretics so excited the populace that from 1574 on 
they formed mobs which sacked the Reformed church, out- 
raged the Protestant cemeteries, and attacked Protestant 
inhabitants ; and similar things were done at Wilno, the cap- 
ital of Lithuania. The king indeed expressed his disap- 
proval, but nothing effectual was done to punish these acts. 
1 He did however banish Christian Francken, a Socinian teacher of 


Chmielnik, for writing a work against the Trinity, and imprisoned 
Alexius Radecki for printing it. 


SUPPRESSION OF SOCINIANISM 167 


During the long reign of Sigismund Wasa III (1587— 
1632), matters rapidly grew worse. Persecution of all 
Protestants increased, and whereas at the king’s accession 
there were (beside the bishops) but few Catholics in the 
Senate, when he died the Protestants had only two members, 
their power was practically broken, and royal confirmation 
of their rights had become little more than a solemn farce. 
The “Jesuit king,” as he was called, was a bigoted zealot. 
He had been brought up under the influence of the Jesuits, 
had joined their order, and even become a cardinal; and he 
did everything possible to favor them. Anti-Protestant 
riots, which the Jesuits stirred up among the lower classes, 
became more and more frequent at Krakow, where the Re- 
formed church was at length burned and never rebuilt. In 
various other cities where Protestants were much in the 
minority the same sort of thing occurred, churches and 
schools were destroyed, and any attempt at punishing the 
outrages was blocked. At the same time the Jesuits were 
intriguing with the higher classes, all the highest offices were 
at their instigation given to Catholics, while the Protestant 
nobles were forced to content themselves with inferior offices 
and honors only. This in itself furnished a powerful temp- 
tation to a Polish noble to turn Catholic again, and many of 
them yielded to it. 

Our main interest here, however, is with the persecution 
as it affected the Socinians. Open attacks on them began 
in this reign, and as they had fewer powerful patrons than 
the Reformed, they could not so successfully defend them- 
selves. Their meeting-place at Krakow was destroyed by a 
mob in 1591. Three years later Socinus himself was at- 
tacked in the streets there and had his face smeared and his 
mouth filled with mud by order of a Polish knight who 
charged him with being an ‘“‘Arian,” and with having under- 


168 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


mined his father’s religious faith. When his work On Christ 
the Savior was published at Krakow in the same year, hatred 
against him flamed up afresh; and at length in 1598, when he 
was ill in bed, a mob led by students of the university broke 
into the house, sacked it and dragged him half-naked from 
his bed and through the streets to the market-place, where 
they burned his books and priceless manuscripts, and threat- 
ened to burn him too unless he would recant. He did not 
weaken even in sight of death, but when he saw a drawn sword 
above his head he calmly declared, ‘‘I will not recant. What 
I have been, that I am and by the grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ shall be till my last breath. Do whatever God allows 
you to do.” When they saw that their threats could not 
frighten him, they set out to throw the stubborn heretic into 
the Vistula, and would have done so without more ado had 
not the rector and two of the professors of the university, 
though Catholics, rescued him by a ruse, at great risk to 
themselves. 

The first actual martyr among the Socinians was Jan 
Tyskiewicz, a wealthy citizen of Bielsk. His relatives 
coveted his property, and therefore laid a plot against him. 
They forced him into the office of town treasurer, and then 
at the end of his year of office required him to take oath 
that he had faithfully discharged his duties. He wished to 
obey the command of Jesus and “swear not at all,” though 
when pressed he yielded the point; but when ordered to 
swear elther on the crucifix or by the Trinity he flatly re- 
fused, as it had been expected that he would do. He was 
thereupon accused of trampling the crucifix under foot and 
blaspheming against the Trinity, was insulted and flogged 
by the magistrate, and condemned to death and thrown into 
prison. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which declared 
him innocent and set him free, at the same time fining the 


SUPPRESSION OF SOCINIANISM 169 


magistrate for imposing an unjust sentence. His enemies 
then appealed to the queen as ruler of this district, and she 
approved the original sentence and ordered it executed, 
whereupon the king and his Council passed this sentence of 
death: ‘Inasmuch as he has blasphemed, let his tongue be 
torn out; inasmuch as he has shown contempt of the magis- 
trate to whom he was subject, and of her majesty’s decree 
by which he was brought before the magistrate, by daring 
to appeal his case to the Supreme Court, let him be beheaded 
as a stubborn rebel; inasmuch as he has trampled upon the 
crucifix, let his hand and his foot be cut off; and finally, in- 
asmuch as he is a heretic, let him be burned.” Jesuits and 
monks now besought him to change his faith, promising to 
have the sentence revoked and his property restored; but he 
remained deaf to all threats or promises, and was led to the 
stake in the market-place at Warsaw, 1611. 

From now on a systematic policy of extermination was 
pursued against the Socinians. One of them was torn in 
pieces by a fanatical mob at Wilno and the courts took no 
notice. Before long all the highest judges were Catholic, 
and one accused of heresy had little chance before them. 
There were sporadic cases all over the kingdom, but the 
first general attack took place at Lublin in 1627. Here the 
Socinians had long had one of their most flourishing 
churches, under the patronage of very distinguished nobles, 
and many synods had been held here, and many debates 
with their opponents. Irritated at the unfavorable results 
of these discussions, the Catholics at length raised a mob 
and destroyed the Socinian church, and from the Supreme 
Court which sat there got a decree abolishing the church 
forever. Despite the decree, secret worship was still main- 
tained there for some years. 

All their previous troubles, however, were as nothing in 


170 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


comparison with the blow that fell upon the Socinians in the 
destruction of Rakow in 1638, by which, as one of them 
pathetically wrote not long after, “the very eye of Poland 
was put out, the asylum and refuge of exiles, the shrine of 
religion and the muses.” A Catholic had set up a wooden 
crucifix by the roadside near the town. At this two boys 
from the school at Rakow (whether in wanton mischief or 
out of misguided religious zeal is not clear) threw stones till 
they had broken it down. They were duly punished by 
their parents, but this did not satisfy the Catholics, who 
were only too ready to seize this occasion for striking a 
killing blow at Socinianism. The boys themselves, after 
being arrested and brought before the Diet at Warsaw, were 
let go, and instead of them, at the instigation of the Bishop 
of Krakow, the whole community of “Arians” at Rakow was 
charged with responsibility for the sacrilege. First of all, 
Sieninski himself, the owner of the town and the patron of 
the church and school, was accused of treason against God 
and man; and the professors and ministers were accused of 
having put the students up to perpetrate their wicked act. 
No proof which they could offer of their innocence was ad- 
mitted; nor did they regard the oath of Sieninski himself 
that the act had been done without his knowledge, though 
he was a man in his seventies, who had formerly sacrificed 
his fortune in behalf of his country, and had often been 
hailed in the Diet as the Father of his Country. His very 
son, whom he had allowed to be brought up in a Jesuit school 
and who had hence turned Catholic, turned against him. 
The protests of many members of the lower house of the 
Diet, of all religions, Catholic included, were disregarded. 
Most of the Protestant members were won over by the 
Jesuits to side against the Socinians as enemies of all Christi- 
anity, although some of them later confessed that they had 


SUPPRESSION OF SOCINIANISM 171 


made a fatal mistake. The matter was not duly tried in 
court at all, nor even agreed upon by the whole Diet, but 
was disposed of in the Senate alone by summary process of 
law. It was decreed that the school at Rakow be demolished, 
the church taken from the “Arians” and closed, the press 
removed, the ministers, professors, and teachers branded 
with infamy and outlawed, all which, says the Catholic his- 
torian, “‘was executed with all imaginable diligence.” 

The church edifice was of course taken over by the Cath- 
olics, richly endowed, and dedicated to the Holy Trinity, 
with a suitable inscription over the door relating what had 
been done. Sieninski died within a year. The Socinian 
congregation, what was left of it, removed to a neighboring 
village, and there in the house of a new patroness continued 
as before to meet for worship thrice a week, and devoted all 
of Fridays to fasting and prayer; but the patroness died a 
few years later, her estate came into the possession of a 
Catholic, and the church became extinct. The ministers, 
though outlawed, found here or there a place where they 
might live in concealment, and after the feeling against them 
had somewhat subsided they at length became settled again 
over congregations in distant parts of the country.” The 
school was combined with that of Kisielin in Volhynia, and 
there continued its existence until abolished by a decree of 
ecurt. After this the chief school of the Socinians was at 
Luclawice where Socinus had spent his last years, and So- 
cinian books were published there. The press at Rakow was 
taken down the Vistula and set up at Danzig. 

From now on blow followed blow in quick succession. 


1A plan was discussed at this time for the Rakow Socinians to re- 
move to more tolerant Holland, but this was interfered with by the 
action of the States General there, who were warned of it by the 
Prince of Transylvania. 


172 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


One church after another was, on one pretext or another, 
closed by decree of the court. At Kisielin, where all the in- 
habitants are said to have been “Arians,” and at Beresko 
near by, school and church were ordered razed to the ground 
in 1644, two ministers long since dead were branded with 
infamy, and the Socinian proprietor was forced to pay some 
20,000 florins for harboring proscribed ministers, and he and 
his sons were forbidden to allow Socinian worship on their 
estates. Mobs in various places would sack the homes of 
prominent Socinians and assault their owners, even beating 
them to death. Preachers were repeatedly arrested and 
brought into court, and persecution seemed to follow them 
like a shadow. Schlichting, one of their most famous schol- 
ars, published a Confession of Faith in 1642, and for this 
was branded with infamy, proscribed, and compelled to 
spend several years in exile; while the book itself was publicly 
burned at Warsaw in 1647. In Protestant territory in the 
neighboring kingdom of Prussia, where the Socinian faith 
had by this time begun to spread among the Lutherans 
enough to arouse their alarm, a decree was issued in 1640 to 
prevent its further spread, and not long afterwards some 
Socinian leaders were banished from Danzig in circumstances 
of the most unfeeling cruelty. 

With the destruction of Rakow, the end of Socinianism in 
Poland was already in sight, and it never recovered from the 
blow; but the inevitable was still further hastened by politi- 
cal events, and misfortunes now came thick, fast, and heavy. 
The first scene in the last act was furnished by the Cossack 
war. _Socinianism had nowhere been more wide-spread and 
firmly established than in Volhynia, in southeastern Poland. 
In 1648 the Cossacks, whom an atrocious wrong done by a 
Polish noble to one of their chiefs had stirred up to avenge 
long-standing oppressions, filled with savage hatred, broke 


SUPPRESSION OF SOCINIANISM 173 


out in rebellion, and swept like a whirlwind over all that 
part of the country as far as the Vistula, ravaging, pillaging, 
and destroying all with fire and sword.’ Whole cities 
were wiped out, the atrocities upon the inhabitants were 
frightful, and many of them were carried into slavery. On 
account of religious hatred, the Cossacks, who were of the 
Eastern Church, were especially savage toward the Socin- 
ians. Many of these in the Ukraine were killed, and over a 
thousand of them in headlong flight left all they possessed 
behind them, and sought refuge with the brethren in Little 
Poland. The churches in this district were never re- 
established. The Cossacks were at length defeated, but they 
soon afterwards joined forces with the Russians and re- 
peated in Lithuania ? in 1654 the ruin they had wrought in 
Volhynia six years before; and here also most of the Socin- 
ian churches were either destroyed or else irreparably weak- 
ened. 

The war with Russia dragged on for thirteen years, but 
before it was more than a year old the Protestant King 
Charles X of Sweden, taking advantage of Poland’s pros- 
trate condition, made war upon her, and within a short time 
had overrun a large part of the country, captured the capi- 
tal at Krakow, and driven the Polish king over the border. 
Deserted by their own king, and pressed by the Russians in 
one quarter and the Cossacks in another, many of the Poles 
could do nothing for a time but submit to the king of 
Sweden. The Protestants doubtless may have done this 
willingly enough, for Charles treated them more kindly than 
he did the Catholics, and they had perhaps more to hope 
from a foreign Protestant monarch than from their own 
Catholic one. The Socinians submitted among the rest; 


1See Sienkiewicz, With Fire and Sword. 
2See Sienkiewicz, The Deluge. 


174 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


and especially in Little Poland, where their Catholic neigh- 
bors were now taking advantage of the general anarchy to 
plunder their rich estates and murder them wherever found, 
many of them from the palatinate of Krakow fled to the 
capital in 1656 and sought and received the protection of 
the Swedish king as the only one who could guarantee their 
safety. Under this protection they remained for some time, 
again enjoying full liberty. of worship. 

By the next year the tide of war had begun to turn, and 
Charles found himself losing ground. He therefore called 
on Prince George Rakoczy II of Transylvania in 1657 to 
assist him by invading Poland from the south, and the latter, 
lured by a hope of winning the Polish crown for himself, 
hastened to respond to the call. His troops, savage as the 
Cossacks had been, ravaged the district nearest Hungary, 
where Socinian churches were numerous, and thus completed 
the devastation that had been wrought in the rest of the coun- 
try. The fact that Socinian nobles were believed to have 
urged Rakoczy to intervene,’ and that many of his followers 
were Unitarians in religion, must have given fresh ground 
for charging the Socinians with disloyalty, for they were ac- 
cused of having intrigued with him against their own king. 

When his fortunes were now at the lowest ebb, the Polish 
King John Casimir had made a solemn vow that if he won 
back his kingdom he would purge it of heresy; and when the 
Swedes had at length been expelled from the country, he set 
about to fulfill his vow, beginning with the Socinians, who 
were charged (however unjustly) with having been during 
the war the most disloyal of all, as well as the most hated and 
incidentally the weakest of the Protestant sects. The scat- 
tered brethren were only just beginning to come out of their 


1Some of them had in fact gone to Transylvania to persuade the 
prince and had helped him prepare for the war. 


SUPPRESSION OF SOCINIANISM 175 


hiding-places and to hope for the blessings of peace at last, 
when they were again attacked, their houses burned, their 
goods plundered, and themselves wounded or murdered. 
The Diet made only an empty response to their appeal for 
protection, and then proceeded in 1658 to enact a decree to 
expel the Socinians utterly and forever from the land. It 
revived a decree against heresy which in 1424, more than a 
century before the Reformation, had been passed against the 
Hussites, had long been obsolete, and had been virtually 
abrogated by the Diet; and deliberately disregarding the 
law of general toleration which had been passed in 1573 and 
had been solemnly confirmed by every monarch since then, in- 
cluding the reigning king, it passed a law that if any one 
were found in the realms daring to profess or spread or 
preach the Arian doctrine, or to protect or comfort its ad- 
herents, and were lawfully convicted thereof, he should be 
subject to the law referred to, and without delay be put to 
death; but since they desired to show mercy, if any such 
person were found unwilling to renounce his errors, he should 
be granted three years to collect his debts; though mean- 
while he should hold no worship of his sect, nor hold any 
public office. There still remained, however, one Socinian 
member of the Diet, Tobias Wiszowaty, and he invoked the 
liberum veto} against the law; but so determined were the 
great majority to banish the Socinians at all costs that it 
was disregarded. 

This law struck its victims like a thunderbolt; but as if 
it had given them too generous indulgence in granting them 
three years to settle up their affairs, the next Diet shortened 

1The liberum veto had come into use a few years before, and was 
highly esteemed as a safeguard against infringing the liberties of 


members. By use of it a single member might block any proposed ac- 
tion, or even dissolve the Diet. It was repeatedly used, and often 


wrought great mischief. 


176 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the term to two years, fixing the final date as July 10, 1660, 
though reminding them that the law would not be enforced 
against those who returned to the Catholic Church. Some 
of the most wealthy nobles went over to the Reformed 
Church as the least of the evils, but this was soon forbidden 
by a new law. Many of the common people, having no 
means of leaving the country, in desperation professed the 
Catholic faith as the only alternative to death; though even 
of these some later returned to their former faith. Strik- 
ing misfortunes soon after befalling some of these apostates 
were interpreted by those who had remained faithful as 
judgments of God upon apostasy. The Catholics on their 
part felt that they had their reward, for the king declared 
that from this time on he began to be more successful against 
his enemies, and the Pope honored him with the coveted 
title of Orthodox King.* 

The Socinians, unable to believe that they must really suf- 
fer the cruel fate decreed against them, turned in every di- 
rection to find a way to avert it. They petitioned to the 
king, endeavoring to show that they agreed with the Catho- 
lics in fundamentals, since they accepted the Apostles’ Creed ; 
but in vain. Some of the Socinian nobles who had been un- 
der the protection of the Swedish king at Krakow, and had 
followed in his train when he withdrew from the city, sought 
his influence to get the Socinians included with the others 
who had adhered to the King of Sweden, in the amnesty pro- 
vided for in the treaty of Oliva which made peace between 
Sweden and Poland; but Lutheran opposition prevented this. 
The Elector of Brandenburg, who had helped Poland to de- 
feat Sweden, used his influence in their behalf, but to no pur- 
pose. As a last resort, three or four months before the ex- 


1In 1664 he resigned his crown, and went to be abbot of a monastery 
in France. 


SUPPRESSION OF SOCINIANISM 177 


piration of the time, many of the wealthiest Socinian nobles 
asked for a friendly discussion of the religious differences 
existing between themselves and the Catholics. The Bishop 
of Krakow gave his sanction, and the Governor of Warsaw 
opened his palace at Roznow for the purpose. In the end 
but few of the Socinians thought it safe to attend, but they 
were represented in debate by Andrew Wiszowaty, grandson 
of Socinus; while the Jesuits and other orders sent their 
ablest disputants. The debates lasted five whole days. 
Wiszowaty proved himself by far the ablest debater, and 
made a deep impression upon many of the Catholics present. 
One of his principal opponents confessed to the governor 
that had all the devils come out of hell they could not have 
defended their religion more ably than this one man. The 
result of the discussion was that the Catholics became some- 
what milder in their persecution, and on the other hand that 
many of the wavering Socinians were confirmed to persevere 
in their faith. Every inducement was offered the Socinians 
to renounce their faith and return to the Catholic Church; 
and Wiszowaty was promised by the governor a life estate 
and a generous pension if he would change his religion, but 
he could not be moved. 

Ever since the decree had been passed the Socinians had 
been generally treated as outlaws, and little protection had 
been afforded them. Happy were those who had taken early 
opportunity to dispose of their property. Those who 
waited until it was clear that there was no escape for them 
were able to sell only at the greatest sacrifices, some for a 
tenth of the real value, some for a twentieth, while some 
were unable to sell at all, and had to content themselves with 
a mere promise to pay, or to leave their property to well- 
disposed friends to sell for them. Meanwhile the faithful 
took every measure possible to preserve their churches and 


178 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 

their faith from extinction. At their synod in 1659 they 
laid all plans for holding worship and carrying on their 
church life in foreign lands as before, provided for publish- 
ing a book on the government of their churches; and that 
the memory of their past might not perish even though 
their children should at length live under other skies and 
forget the Polish tongue, they appointed one to write down 
their history. 

At last the fateful day arrived, when those who could still 
do so took their departure, carrying with them only their 
most valued possessions. Many indeed were quite unable to 
get away at all. It was estimated that a thousand families 
were left behind in the greatest destitution, especially in the 
palatinate of Krakow, and these had to go into hiding in 
remote places, or to seek the protection of friends who 
ventured to take the risk. It was but a minority that were 
able to emigrate. Every inducement to become Catholic 
appealed to those who had still dared remain. Property, 
honors, and offices would at once be restored to them. On 
the other hand any who aided them in any way, or had the 
least intercourse with them, were subject to confiscation of 
property without remedy; and since many were suspected 
of still lying concealed or being protected in the kingdom, 
another decree was passed in 1661 charging officers to use 
all diligence to search out and arrest any who could be dis- 
covered in the country. All such were proscribed and their 
names posted at Warsaw, and without further hearing or 
opportunity for defense, all, whether women or girls, or 
those enfeebled by age or illness, were required to leave with- 
out the least delay, nor were even Socinian wives safe, whose 
husbands had turned Catholic. The husbands were fined 
for having “Arian” wives. 

One of the ministers named Morsztyn at the risk of his 


SUPPRESSION OF SOCINIANISM 179 


life stayed behind in Poland with his son to minister to 
the scattered Socinians, and he continued in this office as 
late as 1668. Wiszowaty also made his way back in the 
first winter to comfort the poor, the widows, and the orphans 
who had been unable to get away and who now flocked to him 
as soon as they heard of his arrival; and he repeated his 
visit the second winter. A synod was even held in Poland 
in great secrecy in 1662, at which two ministers were ap- 
pointed to look after the brethren scattered throughout the 
land. 

A deep thrill of horror and of sympathy ran through the 
more liberal Protestants of Europe over the cruelties of 
this exile and the sufferings of the Socinians, whose books 
had now for a generation or more been read and appreciated, 
and whose leaders were famous, in Holland and England. 
In response to an appeal, aid in generous amount was there- 
fore raised by a Remonstrant pastor named Neranus in 
Holland, by a member of the Church of England named 
Firmin, whom we shall meet again in our history, and by So- 
cinians living in Holstein; and this was carefully distributed 
among the suffering brethren in Poland or in exile, wherever 
any could be learned of. This distribution in Poland con- 
tinued as long as five years after the banishment, but after 
that we have no further record of the survivors there. 

We have seen that the banishment of the Socinians from 
Poland was brought about by codperation between the Cath- 
olics and the orthodox Protestants. The latter did not real- 
ize that they were thus being used as tools to dig their own 
graves. It was not long, however, before they woke up to 
what they had done. With the Socinians once out of the 
way the Catholics soon began to increase their persecution 
of the other Protestants. The Bohemian Brethren, the next 
weaker sect, were expelled a year after the Socinians, and 


180 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


by 1668 the power of Protestantism in Poland was prac- 
tically crushed. In 1716 freedom of religious worship was 
forbidden to all Protestants except in their older churches ; 
and in 1733 and 1786 their most important political rights 
were taken from them. When after a long struggle the old 
rights of Dissidents were again restored in 1767, it was too 
late to be of. much good to the orthodox Protestant cause, 
which has never since had more than a feeble existence in 
Polish lands; and of course it was forever too late for the 
Socinians.* 


1The treatment of these heretics in Poland in the seventeenth cen- 
tury was after all far better than in some other countries of Europe, 
though it was more conspicuous on account of the large numbers and 
high position of the Socinians, and was more aggravated by contrast 
with the previous policy of toleration. For while the rest of Europe in 
the seventeenth century was slowly growing more tolerant, Poland was 
rapidly growing less so. To Protestant critics the Catholics justified 
this treatment of heretics by citing the case of Servetus, and the writ- 
ings of Calvin and Beza defending the capital punishment of heretics. 
It is now recognized by historians that one of the main causes of the 
downfall of the nation was its religious quarrrels and the intolerant 
policy promoted by the Jesuits. 


CHAPTER XIX 
THE SOCINIANS IN EXILE, 1660-18038 


The history of religious persecution has scarcely a more 
pathetic and tragic chapter than that of the Socinian exiles 
from Poland. The sufferings of the Pilgrim Fathers are 
nothing in comparison to it. Many, as we have seen, were 
obliged to remain behind in Poland, though of these some 
doubtless managed to remove later. The rest must have 
been gradually absorbed in the other churches, or else 
have died off within a generation. Those that went into 
exile scattered in every direction, but we are able to 
trace six distinct colonies of them who held together for 
a longer or shorter time, in Transylvania, Silesia, the 
Rhine Palatinate, Holstein, Brandenburg, and Prussia, 
not to mention Holland, whither many from these various 
colonies eventually went, there at length to mingle with the 
liberal Dutch churches, in which they found a hospitable 
home. 

The largest migration sought to find a new home in Tran- 
sylvania where, as we shall see in the next division of this 
history, there had long been well organized churches of their 
own faith, with which they had maintained friendly if not 
intimate relations for nearly a century. Their petition to 
be received into that country, however, was for some reason 
at first denied by the prince then ruling. They therefore 
separated into two divisions and for a time found welcome 


with two Protestant nobles of Hungary. One of these di- 
181 


182 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


visions went to Kesmark in Szepes (Zips) County and was 
hospitably received by Count Stephen Thokély, who had a 
ready rebuke for an English clergyman who reproached him 
for thus sheltering heretics. It was here that Wiszowaty 
made the headquarters from which he returned for two win- 
ters to comfort the faithful remaining in Poland. What at 
last became of this colony does not appear, but as we hear 
httle further of them, it is probable that they soon broke up, 
some of them following Wiszowaty to Silesia, while most of 
the rest proceeded before long to join their brethren in 
Transylvania. 

The other division set out to seek the protection of Prince 
Francis Rhedei at Huszt in Marmaros County. They were 
a wretched company of more than 500, with a train of 300 
wagons bearing such few household possessions as they could 
take with them. Hardly had they crossed the Carpathians 
into Hungary when they were set upon by a band of free- 
booting Hungarian soldiers known in the country as ‘“‘the 
Devil’s fiends,” who were supposed to have been secretly in- 
formed and incited to the act from Poland. ‘They were plun- 
dered of their possessions, their provisions, and even the 
clothes they wore, and were maltreated in every way. The 
larger part of them, staggered by this new calamity, turned 
back in despair to Poland and professed the Catholic faith, 
or else sought refuge in Prussia. The rest, destitute and 
half naked, but hardened to dangers, pushed on toward their 
destination. After spending the winter at Huszt, about 200 
of them comprising some thirty families went on the next 
year, and at length reached the metropolis of Unitarianism 
at Kolozsvar. ‘The brethren there had just been overrun by 
Turks and Tatars in the war then raging, and had them- 
selves been plundered of nearly all that they had; but when 
they heard of the sad plight of their brethren from Poland, 


SOCINIANS IN EXILE 183 


they sent out wagons to meet them, supplied them with food 
and clothing, and gave them shelter. Yet here, in a strange 
and severe climate, and weakened by hardship and exposure, 
they were almost immediately attacked by the plague, and 
barely thirty of them survived it.t A new prince had now 
come to the throne, Michael Apaffi I, and when he offered 
them the shelter and protection which no other sovereign in 
Christian Europe would grant them, they made arrange- 
ments for permanent settlement in the country, after which 
others from Poland doubtless joined them. They were 
granted the rights of citizenship, and a church of their own 
was set aside for them to worship in; but they were long 
in extreme destitution, and even after fifty years they were 
still obliged to appeal to their more prosperous brethren in 
other lands for aid in supporting their church, their school, 
and the poor. Yet their numbers gradually increased, so 
that in 1707 they sent out colonies to other parts of the 
country, and for some time they had in all four churches. 
At about this time some of them planned to return to Poland, 
and funds were raised to assist them in doing so; but when 
the venture was made in 1711, the bare chimneys of their 
burned homes, and the religious hatred with which they were 
received by the inhabitants, discouraged them so much that 
the attempt was given up. 

The Polish Socinians in Transylvania at length suffered 
the inevitable fate of any small colony in a strange land. 
The original exiles died, their children intermarried with 
the Transylvanians and became scattered, and thus they 
gradually forgot their mother tongue and became mingled 
with the surrounding population. As long as it was pos- 
sible, they maintained worship in the Polish language and 
had Polish ministers; but it became more and more difficult 

1Compare the Pilgrims, and their first winter in America, 


184 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


to secure ministers, and congregations gradually dwindled. 
The last Polish preacher at Kolozsvar died in 1792; and his 
congregation had already united with the Hungarian Uni- 
tarian Church there eight years before. The other three 
churches had become extinct considerably earlier. The de- 
scendants of the Polish exiles were not ungrateful to their 
Unitarian friends. Many of them rose to high position in 
public life and acquired wealth; and one of them named 
Augustinowics dying in 1837 left the Unitarian church a 
bequest of 100,000 florins, which long amounted to more 
than all the rest of the funds of the church combined. 

A second company of exiles crossed over the western bor- 
der of Poland into Silesia, where scattered Socinians had 
long lived, from among whom had come several well-known 
ministers to the Polish churches, and where yet more had 
lately settled as refugees before Rakoczy’s invasion in 1657. 
Many were received under the protection of the Queen of 
Poland in her principalities of Oppeln and Ratibor where she 
shielded them from the attacks of the Catholic clergy; but 
as they were widely scattered they were able to form no con- 
gregation, and we hear no more of them. 

A considerable number, however, including some of the 
most distinguished nobles and ministers, sought refuge just 
over the border at Kreuzburg, where they hoped to find 
toleration among Protestants who were themselves being 
threatened with persecution for their faith. They did not 
expect to settle here permanently, though they hoped to have 
indulgence from the Duke of Brieg, who was of the Reformed 
faith, until they could arrange their affairs in Poland, pro- 
vide for the brethren left behind them, and make plans for 
a new home, if perchance there were no turn of fortune 
in their favor. Instead they were ordered to leave within 
three days. Some of them went on and thus disappear from 


SOCINIANS IN EXILE 185 


our view. The rest petitioned the Duke for leave to stay a 
few days longer, and when this leave had expired it was ex- 
tended for three months more, on condition of their not 
carrying on any propaganda or holding public worship. 
By the time this period had elapsed, the prejudice against 
them had evidently subsided, and they were quietly tolerated 
and allowed to meet privately for worship in their own homes. 
Publicly they worshiped with the other Protestants. The 
Bohemian Brethren had tried hard to persuade the Duke not 
to let them stay, but the Lutheran ministers and citizens 
were in the main kind to them; and while they were not 
allowed to bury their dead in the Protestant cemetery, they 
were assigned a small one of their own. Although most of 
them were nobles, they were nearly all left poor, and know- 
ing no trade, and being ignorant of the language of the 
country, they found the greatest difficulty in making a bare 
living. In this extremity the gifts of money received from 
Holland and England? were like manna from heaven; and 
the letter which twenty-six of them signed making acknowl- 
edgment of these gifts, and relating the story of their ban- 
ishment and their present circumstances, is one of the most 
interesting documents in their whole history. 

Kreuzburg was the most convenient center where the exiles 
might gather from the various quarters to which they had 
- scattered. They therefore continued to hold their synods 
there, to which delegates came from Transylvania, Prussia, 
Brandenburg, and Holland, so that Kreuzburg became for 
the time a sort of capital fer Socinianism, as Rakow had 
once been. After providing for their immediate necessities, 
the first care of the exiles here was for the brethren still 
remaining in Poland. During eight years they appointed 
ministers to return secretly to visit them and confirm them 


1See page 179. : 


186 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


in their faith. They provided for the training of young 
ministers, and for the publication of controversial works 
and commentaries in support of their doctrines. They sent 
agents in various directions to see if a place could be found 
where they might settle; and these efforts proved more or 
less successful, so that by 1669 only three noble families 
and a few commoners remained of the Kreuzburg company. 
Most of them seem to have joined the exiles in Prussia, 
though a few scattered about in Silesia, to whom the brethren 
in Prussia for the next ten years sent back a minister each 
year to preach and administer the Lord’s Supper. The 
last of these itinerant missionaries died while on his journey 
to them in 1680. 

Another and smaller company of exiles settled in the 
Rhine Palatinate. It has been seen in a previous chapter 
that early in the Reformation the antitrinitarian Anabap- 
tists were mercilessly persecuted in various parts of Prot- 
estant Germany;! and from that time on the German 
princes, strongly Lutheran in faith, had never shown the 
least tolerance to those that denied the doctrine of the 
Trinity. There had been repeated cases of expulsion of 
students in various German universities, or even of imprison- 
ment or banishment, for being unsound on this point; various 
princes had issued decrees against deniers of the Trinity; 
and the few ministers who had ventured to follow Servetus 
or Socinus suffered imprisonment or exile, most of them 
taking refuge among the Socinians in Poland or the Unita- 
rians in Transylvania. As early as about 1570 there had 
been a little group of these in the Palatinate itself, of whom 
one, Adam Neuser, had been imprisoned for ten long years 
at Heidelberg, and another, Johannes Sylvanus, had been put 

1See pages 45-49, 


SOCINIANS IN EXILE 187 


to death, while yet others were banished, by the zealous 
Elector Frederick III, “the pious.” 

His great-great-grandson, the Elector Karl Ludwig, how- 
ever, was more tolerant. Moravian Anabaptists had 
already built a church under his protection, and a number 
of Socinian refugees bringing their minister with them had 
already been kindly received. A Polish Socinian knight of 
great influence also helped secure favor for his brethren; 
and as the Elector was using every means to attract settlers 
to rebuild his city of Mannheim, long wasted by wars, he 
took pity on the exiles and granted them refuge there. 

The synod at Kreuzburg in 1663 sent two of its best-known 
ministers, Wiszowaty and Stegmann, to prepare the way, 
and a company of exiles soon followed. They lived there 
three years, happy under the Elector’s protection. They 
not only held their customary religious services for their 
own members in their private houses, and occasionally min- 
istered to other exiles farther down the Rhine at Wied; but 
they also zealously tried to spread their faith among others 
by means of personal conversations and the circulation of 
their books. The Elector himself grew deeply interested in 
their views, and had many religious conversations with 
Wiszowaty; but when his subjects began to show the in- 
fection of heresy, the Lutheran clergy took notice and had 
the Socinians haled into court at Heidelberg, where they 
were forbidden henceforth to discuss religion with any one, 
or to circulate their books. This restriction at once took 
away half of what made life there seem worth living for 
them; a war broke out with Lorraine; and a visitation of 
the plague attacked a great part of the inhabitants. They 
therefore decided to emigrate. Some of them may have 
returned to Silesia or removed to Prussia, but most went 


188 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


with Wiszowaty to Holland where he had formerly studied 
and had many warm friends among the Dutch, where many 
of the brethren already were, and where we shall soon meet 
them again. 

A fourth band of exiles found a brief refuge in the duchy 
of Holstein. Stanislaw Lubieniecki, a famous Socinian 
courtier and scholar, had intimate relations with various 
courts in Europe.’ He had followed in the train of the 
King of Sweden when the latter left Krakow; and when 
he at last saw no hope of being permitted to return home, 
he went to Copenhagen, hoping to find a place of refuge 
for the exiles in the realm of King Frederick HI of Den- 
mark. Here he so much won the regard of the king that 
the apprehension of the Lutheran theologians at court was 
aroused lest the king, with whom he often talked on re- 
ligion, should become an “‘Arian.” He at first secured royal 
permission for the exiles to settle at Altona; but later, upon 
request of the secret synod held in Poland in 1662, he 
sought a place of settlement for them at Friedrichstadt, 
where Remonstrant and Mennonite refugees from Holland, 
and Quakers from England, had been received and tolerated. 
He obtained permission from the local government for the 
exiles to settle there with full enjoyment of civil and re- 
ligious rights, and to hold religious worship in private 
houses after their custom. He then sent word to the breth- 
ren living on the borders of Poland, and incurred very large 
expense to help them remove that same year (1662) to their 
new home, where they established a congregation with their 
own minister, and sought, though with no success, to effect 

1It was he that had won the favor of the Elector Karl Ludwig for 


the exiles at Mannheim (page 187). He was own cousin to the next 
Polish King, John III. 


SOCINIANS IN EXILE 189 


a union with the Mennonites or the Remonstrants who were 
living there as religious refugees like themselves. 

Unfortunately permission to settle had not also been ob- 
tained from Christian Albert, the ruling Duke of Holstein, 
and it was not long before he was persuaded by the Lutheran 
superintendent to command them to leave his territories. 
They therefore went on to Holland, where many of their 
brethren were now gathering from different quarters. 
Lubieniecki took up his residence at Hamburg, where he 
held important diplomatic offices, and incidentally made use 
of his opportunities with people in high station to interest 
them in his religious views. After he had lived there several 
years, however, the clergy secured his banishment from the 
city on the ground that he had corrupted the religious faith 
of a Lutheran divinity student; though before the sentence 
could be carried out, he died of poison in suspicious circum- 
stances. Even then the clergy used all their influence to 
prevent the burial of his body in the church at Altona, and 
having failed in this they still prevented the usual funeral 
honors from being paid. 

A fifth group of exiles established themselves under the 
rule of the Great Elector Frederick William in the Mark of 
Brandenburg, and formed churches at several places not far 
from Frankfurt on the Oder, having for their last settled 
minister Samuel Crellius, member of one of the most famous 
families of Socinian scholars and preachers. Yet nothing 
could save them from succumbing to their environment. In 
a generation or two their descendants were speaking only 
German. Their numbers grew steadily fewer. In 1718 only 
some twenty-five adult males remained, and in 1725 Crellius 
gave up his charge. After this the members were annually 
visited for some time by a minister from the churches in 


190 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Prussia, who preached and administered the sacraments to 
the survivors; but by 1758 they had completely vanished. 
How seriously these exiled Socinians took their religion is 
illustrated by the letter which two brothers Widawski, offi- 
cers in the Prussian army, wrote to Crellius in 1717, asking 
whether, being far from any church of their own faith, 
they might partake of the Lord’s Supper in the Reformed 
Church. 

Crellius went from Brandenburg to England, where he 
formed the acquaintance of numerous liberal divines in the 
English Church, and thence to Holland, where he died in 
1747. He left two sons, Stephen and Joseph, of whom it is 
related that when they were studying at a gymnasium in Ber- 
lin they were told that they might stay there no longer unless 
they would join the Reformed Church, since otherwise the 
gymnasium would get a bad reputation. They did not yield 
to the demand. They later emigrated to America among the 
first settlers of the colony of Georgia, where the former 
became a justice of the peace, and the latter a planter. 
They are the only Polish Socinians known to have come to 
America. 

The last country in which the Socinians tried to establish 
a new home was the duchy of Prussia (now East Prussia), 
which like Brandenburg was governed by the Great Elector. 
The prevailing religion here was Lutheran, though the 
Elector himself was Reformed, and disposed to be tolerant. 
When he came into power in 1640 he appointed as governor 
of the province his relative Prince Boguslaw Radziwill, who 
in the war with Sweden had helped to make Prussia inde- 
pendent of Poland. One of his ancestors had given his 
powerful protection to the early Antitrinitarians in Lithu- 
ania, where he had himself enjoyed close relations with the 
Socinians ; while his cousin Janus had defended them at the 


SOCINIANS IN EXILE 191 


Diet of Warsaw in 1638 in the debate over the destruction 
of Rakow.' The governor was therefore disposed to pro- 
tect the Socinians to the limit of his power, so that many 
of them came to Prussia in 1660, chiefiy from Lithuania 
which lay just over the border. He made one of them his 
secretary, and had others in positions of influence in his 
court at Konigsberg; while the Elector also had several of 
them among his councilors. With such powerful friends at 
court, many of the exiles sought refuge in various parts of 
Masuria, hoping to be allowed to live there quietly under 
the governor’s protection; and several of them acquired 
large estates there on which the brethren might live around 
them in villages in the old Polish fashion, and establish 
congregations for worship. Stragglers thus kept arriving 
for several years from Poland or from the other exile 
colonies. 

No sooner had the exiles arrived, however, than the Lu- 
theran clergy began incessantly to work for the banishment 
of these “Arians.” They got edicts to this effect passed 
against them, and the right of holding public worship 
was denied them. Meanwhile they must have had some as- 
surance from friends at court that though decrees might be 
passed to pacify the Lutherans, the governor would be slow 
to execute them; for in 1662 they organized a church at 
Konsinowo (Andreaswalde), and later one at Rudawki 
(Rutow). They also sent delegates to synods at Kolozsvar 
and Kreuzburg, held synods of their own, received aid for 
their poor from their friends in Holland and England, and 
sent aid to the exiles at Kolozsvar. Nevertheless the fear 
of banishment constantly hung like a sword of Damocles 
over their heads, for it could never be predicted when the 
Lutherans might bring upon the Elector pressure too great 


iSee page 170. 


hes OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


for him to resist. To forestall such a fate the governor’s 
secretary, Przypkowski, addressed to the Elector in 1666 
an eloquent defense of those so unjustly persecuted (A polo- 
gia Afflicte Innocentiv), in which he corrected common mis- 
statements as to their doctrines, showed how peaceable and 
inoffensive they were, and pointed to the examples of tolera- 
ation shown them in Transylvania, Silesia, the Palatinate, 
and Holland. The edict was not withdrawn, but the Elector 
connived at their staying a while longer. Not long after- 
wards they even established a congregation with a minister at 
K6nigsberg; and they presented to the Elector a confes- 
sion of their faith, carefully based on Scripture through- 
out, free from controversy, and calculated to soften preju- 
dice against them. 

Their friend the governor died in 1669, and the Lutherans 
thereupon obtained another edict from the Elector denying 
them further toleration, but again they appealed to his 
sympathy, mercy, and sense of justice; and while the ortho- 
dox kept urging that the decree be enforced, he on his part 
recommended to his Council to be mild. Feeling that they 
were in imminent danger, however, the Socinians now sought 
the intercession of the King of Poland, who wrote urgent 
letters to the Elector, the new governor, and the Ministers 
of State, pleading the distinguished ancestry of the exiles, 
and asking toleration for them as former subjects of Poland. 

This appeal was effective, and from now on the Elector 
strove to protect the Socinians. They had indeed to take 
care not to arouse the Lutherans by doing anything to 
spread their faith, as by holding public services, engaging in 
religious discussions, or circulating their books; but within 
these limits they now went on for more than a hundred 
years leading a quiet, normal church life. They held reg- 
ular synods, kept in touch with the exiles in other lands, 


SOCINIANS IN EXILE 193 


sent their young ministers to Holland for training, and 
maintained their traditional standards of morals and piety. 
Now and then they had to be admonished not to engage in 
propaganda, but for the most part they were no longer 
seriously molested. 

They built a church and school at Konsinowo in 1721, 
and for a time they grew bolder; and their influence began 
to spread so much that the Lutheran clergy became alarmed, 
and public worship was again forbidden in 1730. How- 
ever it might be delayed, the inevitable fate of a weak minor- 
ity surrounded by a people of another faith could not be 
finally escaped. It was to avoid just such a fate in 
Holland that the Pilgrims emigrated from there to America. 
Their number steadily declined. In the course of time some 
died. Some removed to Holland or England, Transylvania 
or Poland. Some married Lutheran or Reformed wives, 
and their children were brought up in another faith. They 
continued to hold their worship in Polish, but at length for 
their children they had to use a German catechism along 
with their Polish one. They were debarred from public 
office, public honors, privileges, and the professions; they 
could not get permanent title to property or make profit- 
able investments. By 1750 they had lost connection with 
the brethren in Transylvania, and the smaller of their two 
little churches became extinct with the death of its minister 
in 1752. When the congregation at Konsinowo wished a 
few years later to build a new church, they were long de- 
layed by litigation over the property. When in 1776 they 
at length got leave from King Frederick the Great to build, 
with full freedom of public worship granted, they had grown 
so few and poor that after twelve years only some materials 
had been collected, and it is doubtful whether the new church 
was ever built at all. For in 1767 nominal religious freedom 


194 _ OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


had been restored in Poland, and it is more than likely that 
some of the Socinians then returned to their ancestral home. 
Their last minister, Schlichting, died about 1803, and the 
surviving members sold and divided the church property in 
1811. Thus expired the last Socinian church in history. 

Individual Socinians still continued to live in Prussia, 
holding true to the faith of their fathers, and some of them 
holding responsible public offices. The last recorded senti- 
ment of any of them has a surprisingly modern sound: “that 
true religion consists not in name or form, but in upright- 
ness of life.’ Two aged Socinians were still reported in 
the religious statistics of Prussia for 1838, a Schlichting 
and a Morsztyn, and the last survivor died in 1852. Long 
before that date, however, the free faith for which the 
Socinians of Poland had gone through over two centuries 
of persecution at home or in exile, had won fuller freedom 
and made greater conquests, under happier conditions, in 
England and America than they perhaps ever dreamed. 
There we shall follow the story a little later. Meantime 
we have to turn to a land of considerable religious freedom, 
which served as a sort of bridge over which Socinianism was 
to pass from Poland to England. We must trace the little 
known history of Socinianism in Holland. 


CHAPTER XX 
SOCINIANISM IN HOLLAND, 1598-1750 


While we have seen in the previous chapter that two of 
the companies of Socinian exiles bravely maintained their 
churches for far over a century, it may already have been 
noticed that from all these exile colonies the roads seemed 
to lead at last to Holland. ‘There we are able to trace 
the influence of the Socinian spirit and teaching long after 
the last Socinian church had perished. The way for the 
exiles had long been preparing in Holland. We have found 
antitrinitarian Anabaptists there near the beginning of the 
Reformation, and their leaven continued to work among 
the people long after they themselves had been put to 
silence. Individual Antitrinitarians were found in Holland 
all through the sixteenth century, and each of them must 
have had his considerable circle of followers, though only 
one of them is known to have had any connection with the 
movement in Poland. They were all of them more or less 
subjected to persecution. William (the Silent) of Orange, 
however, made freedom of worship one of the conditions 
of peace with Spain in 1578; and although this was by no 
means always observed, and religious persecution was oc- 
casionally practiced down to nearly the middle of the eight- 
eenth century, complete religious toleration remained a sort 
of national ideal from William on. Despite all lapses, and 
the fact that public worship was not strictly legal except 


for the Reformed Church, Holland was still in 1660 the 
195 


196 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


only country in Protestant Europe which professed to grant 
religious toleration to all citizens on its soil. 

The first Socinians to introduce their faith into Holland 
were Ostorod and Wojdowski, two ministers from Poland, 
who while visiting the University of Leiden in 1598 sought 
to make converts among the students there by conversations 
and by circulating books which they had brought with them. 
They won to their way of thinking a German student named 
Ernest Soner who, as we have already seen,’ afterwards 
did so much for their cause when he was teaching at Altorf. 
They also made the acquaintance of the young Arminius, 
who was later to lead a movement against Calvinism and 
pave the way for Methodism; and although they did not 
make an Antitrinitarian of him, yet it is hard not to believe 
that they did plant liberal seeds in his mind, and persuade 
him to accept some of the principles of Socinianism. For it 
began a generation later to be persistently charged that 
he had himself been a Socinian, and his followers in the 
Remonstrant Church showed much sympathy with the 
Socinians who came to Holland. The authorities had these 
two under suspicion almost from the day of their arrival, 
and seizing their books submitted them to the Leiden the- 
ologians, who pronounced their teaching little better than 
Mohammedanism. A trial was had, and after various de- 
lays it was ordered that the books be publicly burnt, and 
that their owners leave the country within ten days. After 
this it was several years before Socinianism again made any 
stir in Holland. : 

A dozen years later a liberal wing in the Reformed 
Church had begun to oppose the extreme doctrines of Calvin- 
ism; and when their leader, Arminius, died, Conrad Vorst 
was appointed his successor as professor in the University 


1See page 158, 


SOCINIANISM IN HOLLAND 197 


of Leiden. It was not long before he was charged with 
being a Socinian. Though he himself denied the charge, 
King James I of England believed it, had one of his books 
publicly burnt in 1611, and himself wrote a confutation of 
it, and finally protested to the Dutch government against 
their tolerating such a heretic.1 Agitation against him was 
kept up for some years; and the end was that in 1619 he was 
removed from his chair as a heretic, and was banished from 
the country. Three years later he died in exile in Holstein, 
hunted to death by his persecutors. 

These persecutions however, were not enough to keep 
Socinianism from spreading in the country. Polish stu- 
dents kept coming to study in Dutch universities, especially 
after Altorf had been closed to them, and of course they 
embraced every opportunity to spread their views. The 
orthodox became alarmed, for they considered all this as 
blasphemy against God. Their synods kept urging that 
this heresy destroyed all Christianity and the hope of im- 
mortality, and that it ought to be severely repressed, lest 
Holland get a bad name in the Christian world; and they in- 
duced the States General to pass decrees against Socinianism 
in 1628, though as the magistrates in the larger towns were 
much disposed to be tolerant, little came of them. 

The Remonstrants had by now separated from the Re- 
formed Church, and within a generation several of their 
professors and many of their ministers were known to be 
more or less Socinian in their thought; while professed dis- 
believers in the Trinity were received into many Dutch 
churches without objection. More than once, therefore, the 
brethren in Poland sent their most persuasive embassador to 
try to bring about some sort of union with the Remonstrants 


1It was at this period that the Pilgrims were sojourning at Leiden, 
1609-1620. 


198 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


in Holland. When the latter had been for a time driven 
into exile by the Reformed, the Polish brethren offered them 
aid if in need, or a refuge in Poland; and again during their 
brief stay at Friedrichstadt they tried to form a union with 
the Remonstrants living in exile there. But there were 
too many points of difference between them, and though 
they willingly gave individual Socinians a tolerant welcome 
in their churches, the Remonstrants steadily denied that they 
were Socinians; nor indeed were they, save in occasional 
points of agreement. 

When the Socinians were driven from Rakow in 1638, 
many of them sought refuge in Holland. This caused a 
fresh outburst of opposition against them, and further at- 
tempts to repress them. The Reformed synods took action 
against Socinians almost every year, and petitioned the 
States General to put them down. The States General 
in turn repeatedly caused proclamations against them to be 
posted, and passed laws forbidding the printing or sale of 
Socinian books, or the holding of Socinian meetings, on 
pain of heavy fines, imprisonment, or banishment for blas- 
phemy. Though books were now and then seized and burnt, 
the printing of them mostly went on as before; they were 
sold and read, and Socinianism steadily spread among the 
people. For as in Prussia,” so here, though the govern- 
ment might try to pacify the orthodox by passing the laws 
they desired against “the blasphemous and wicked Socinians 
and their impious heresies,” as the Synod of Dort called 
them, yet it would do little to enforce them. 

This was the general situation when the Socinians were 
finally banished from Poland in 1660—Socinian views work- 
ing like an invisible leaven all over Holland, Socinian books 


1 See page 188. 
2See pages 191, 192. 


SOCINIANISM IN HOLLAND 199 


being widely read, Socinians everywhere making personal 
converts, and Socinian scholars in friendly intercourse or 
active correspondence with many of the leaders of Dutch 
thought. It was not long before considerable numbers of 
the exiles found their way to Holland, to join their brethren 
already established there. ‘There can not have been a great 
many of them altogether: counting those that had come 
after their expulsion from Rakow in 1638, those that may 
have straggled along from time to time as persecutions grew 
heavier in Poland, and those that came after their banish- 
ment in 1660, there were probably only a few hundred, per- 
haps not more than a few score, though these were destined 
to exert a great influence. The liveliest sympathy was felt 
for them. When the exiles sent out a pitiful appeal for 
help in their distress, some Remonstrant ministers gathered 
a large sum of money and sent it to the brethren at Kreuz- 


‘ and a generation later, in response 


burg for distribution ; 
to a similar appeal, a generous sum was sent to the Uni- 
tarians in Transylvania, whose church and school had been 
destroyed by fire. 

The Socinians in Holland had no recognized leader about 
whom to gather, and they made no attempt to establish 
churches there. They had never wished, indeed, even in 
Poland, to form a separate religious body, and had done so 
only when excluded from the Reformed Church there. In 
Holland this was not necessary. For instead of being uni- 
versally outcast as heretics, they were graciously received, 
in spite of their differences of belief, at the worship and 
sacraments of the tolerant Remonstrants and Mennonites. 
They seem for a little while to have held meetings for wor- 
ship among themselves in their private homes, but these 
can not have been continued long; for they soon found in 


1See pages 179, 185. 


200 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


many of the Dutch congregations the fellowship they had 
so long craved, being treated not as strangers and foreign- 
ers, but as Christian brethren. 

We must now turn to see how the influence of the So- 
cinians was exercised in various quarters, first of all among — 
the Remonstrants, whom we have several times mentioned 
already. Protesting against the strict Calvinism of the 
Dutch Reformed Church, these had been driven out of it in 
1619. For several years they were banished from the 
country by the orthodox. They were opposed to the bond- 
age of creeds, taking only the Bible as their authority. 
They strongly advocated religious freedom, and tolerance of 
differences of belief; and they tended toward a more liberal 
theology. All these things were calculated to create 
sympathy between them and the Socinians, and twice in time 
of persecution attempts had been made to bring about a 
union between them.’ Several books, indeed, were published 
by Socinians on the one hand or by the orthodox on the 
other, to make out that the two were in essential harmony 
with each other. Yet though they agreed in their bottom 
principles, there was too wide a difference in their particu- 
lar beliefs. In especial, the Remonstrants as a whole could 
not accept the Socinian view of the Trinity, the nature of 
Christ, and the atonement. They were repeatedly charged 
with being Socinians, and as often they denied the charge, 
consistently declining the Socinian name, and rejecting 
the most distinctive Socinian doctrines. Nevertheless the 
thought of the Remonstrants came to be profoundly influ- 
enced in the Socinian direction. Their leading theologians 
adopted more and more of the Socinian way of thinking; 
some of them translated and published Socinian works; and 
the result was that after two or three generations more than 

i See pages 155, 189, 197, 


SOCINIANISM IN HOLLAND 201 


half the distance that had separated them had become 
closed up. 

If Socinianism influenced the Remonstrant churches 
mostly by the effect it had upon the thought of their lead- 
ing thinkers and scholars, in another quarter, among the 
Collegiants, it won wide and deep influence over the com- 
mon people. These were not a separately organized sect, 
but simply a group of congregations made up of lay mem- 
bers of other churches, who came together frequently to 
hold what may best be described as_ prayer-meetings 
(collegia, hence their name). At the time when the Re- 
monstrant ministers had been banished from the country, 
these meetings began to be held among the laymen, in order 
that even if they had no minister to preach to them they 
might still have some sort of religious worship; and they suc- 
ceeded so well that even after the ministers returned they 
were continued independently of the organized churches, and 
were maintained till near the end of the eighteenth century. 
These collegia were held in some thirty of the Dutch cities 
and villages, with a sort of headquarters at Rijnsburg, near 
Leiden. They consisted simply of Scripture, prayer, hymns, 
and speaking by whoever wished to take part. The Col- 
legiants had no creed, and they encouraged the greatest 
freedom of speech and the most perfect tolerance of differ- 
ing views. Socinians early began to attend these meetings, 
and as they were permitted to speak their views as freely 
as any, they found here a great opportunity for spreading 
their faith. Although the Collegiants were by no means 
wholly converted to them, these views found more friends 
among them than in any other religious body in Holland; 
and in the opinion of many, the Collegiants were nothing 
but Socinians under another name. Some of them indeed 
openly advocated Socinian teachings, and two of their 


202 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


leaders were even invited to become teachers in the So- 
cinian school at Rakow. At Amsterdam, where some of the 
most prominent Socinians had joined them, they published a 
Dutch translation of the Racovian Catechism in 1659, as 
well as of Servetus on the Trinity, and of various other 
works by Socinus and his followers. But perhaps the most 
marked service which they rendered to the cause was when 
one of the Collegiants had collected and published in eight 
stately folio Latin volumes the works of the leading So- 
cinian scholars (the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum), which 
were sold at a very low price, were widely circulated among 
the educated, and had a wide and deep influence upon the 
religious thinking of Holland and other lands. 

Although the Collegiants were at first made up entirely 
of Remonstrants, after a generation or so by far the largest 
number of them came from the Mennonites,! with whose 
principles and practices they had much in common. The 
Collegiant movement thus became a sort of bridge over which 
Socinianism passed freely into the Mennonite Church, whose 
religious and moral life it was to influence as deeply as it 
had influenced religious thought among the Remonstrants. 
It may be remembered that the Mennonites were originally 
gathered together out of the Anabaptists who had survived 
the persecutions of the time of Luther; and that in the be- 
ginnings of the antitrinitarian movement in Poland the 
Anabaptists were very influential, and that many of their 
views were cherished by the later Socinians.* The Socin- 
ians thus had from the start more in common with the 
Mennonites than with any one else in Holland. Both ob- 
jected to the use of creeds, and took their religion directly 

1See page 46. 


2See page 46. 
3 See pages 140-142, 163, 


SOCINIANISM IN HOLLAND 203 


from the Bible; both emphasized practical Christian life far 
more than any particular doctrine; both tried literally to 
follow the teaching of Jesus; both preferred baptism by 
immersion. Such points of contact had long drawn them 
into sympathy with each other. Ostorod and Wojdowski, 
therefore, before they left Holland, had tried to interest one 
of the Mennonite leaders; and as early as 1606, through the 
medium of a Mennonite congregation at Danzig which had 
friendly relations with the Socinians there, it was attempted 
to bring about a formal union between them. Negotiations 
to this end were in progress for several years, and for a time 
they promised to succeed; but at length the proposal was 
regretfully declined by the Mennonite leaders in Holland, 
on the ground that they had not yet become enough agreed 
among themselves to be ready to undertake union with 
others.’ They may also well have hesitated to imperil the 
freedom of worship which they had so hardly won, by 
formally uniting with a body far more heretical than 
themselves. 

Like the Remonstrants, the Mennonites were repeatedly 
accused of being Socinians, and they invariably denied the 
charge. Of course they never completely agreed with the 
Socinians. Nevertheless, by way of the Collegiants and 
otherwise, Socinianism gradually spread among the Men- 
nonites all over the country until one of their two factions 
became frankly liberal on most points of belief; and when 
in 1722 the 150 Mennonite ministers of Friesland were called 
upon by the local government to subscribe to a Trinitarian 
confession of faith, they refused almost to a man. 

Though among the other bodies of which we have spoken 
Socinianism steadily worked as a leaven, and thus doubtless 
had greater influence than it could have enjoyed had it ex- 


1See page 155. 


204 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


isted as a separately organized church, yet on the Reformed 
Church in Holland it never made any impression. On the 
contrary, the Reformed leaders for two generations kept 
publishing books against it, passing hostile resolutions in 
their synods, and continually spurring the States General 
up to action. At length, however, even the Reformed 
preachers gradually became reconciled to the presence of 
Socinianism in the land, and no longer feared the danger 
of the heresy as they once had done, so that the opposition 
gradually flattened out. Intolerance lasted longest in 
Friesland, where the last act of persecution of Socinians 
was in 1742. From that time on the Socinians are scarcely 
heard of any more: they had lost their separate identity, and 
had become absorbed into the general religious life of the 
country. 

Much influence as Socinianism had in Holland, however, 
it must not be supposed that the influence was all on one 
side; for it was itself also influenced not a little by what it 
found in Holland. After their banishment from Poland the 
churches in exile usually sent their young ministers to the 
Remonstrant seminary at Amsterdam to be trained,’ and 
the liberal professors there naturally influenced the course 
of their thought. The changes that thus took place in later 
Socinianism are to be seen in the later editions of the 
Racovian Catechism. Its doctrines became nearer to those 
of the Remonstrants. The system of belief taught by So- 
cinus had in some respects been rather cold and rigid; but 
as influenced by the Remonstrants Socinianism became 
broadened and enriched. Instead of still taking its doc- 
trines only from the Bible, it now came to rely more upon 
reason; it now made a personal faith in God the central 


1 See page 193. 


SOCINIANISM IN HOLLAND 205 


thing in religion, instead of an intellectual belief about God 
and Christ; it learned to attach more importance to the 
death of Christ; and it abandoned some of the extreme 
Anabaptist views of the earlier time. In fact, so much had 
their doctrine become changed from that of their fathers 
that some of the later Socinians declared that they were no 
longer Socinians, but Unitarians, and that few or no real 
Socinians any longer existed. 

On the other hand, the contribution of Socinianism to 
Dutch Christianity was large and permanent. Whether 
its particular doctrines were accepted or not, its spirit 
prevailed, and that was the really important thing. As the 
spirit of tolerance which Socinus had so much emphasized 
spread, greater stress came to be laid on moral conduct and 
practical Christian life, and less on belief or feeling; and 
the Bible came to be studied not, as before, chiefly for the 
sake of supporting certain dogmas, but in the more reason- 
able way used by the Socinian teachers, and in the free 
spirit of modern liberal scholarship. 

It is at this point that we must take our leave of So- 
cinianism, for it is here that it crosses over into England, 
enters upon a new stage, and presently takes a new name. 
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries England had 
closer relations with Holland than with any other country. 
Many Socinian books published in Holland were circulated 
in England and made converts there; in time of religious 
persecution many English Protestants sought refuge in Hol- 
land; and many English ministers received their training 
there. By these means the Socinian principles of freedom, 
reason, and toleration, as well as many of the Socinian doc- 
trines, were taken to England and deeply influenced its relig- 
ious thought and life. How this new stage developed re- 


206 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


mains to be told in later chapters.!. Meanwhile we must first 
turn back for a time to Transylvania, where a movement of 
Unitarian thought began at almost the same time as in: 
Poland, and instead of becoming extinct there also, has 
continued an unbroken existence down to our own day. 

1 One slender thread of influence seems to connect the Socinianism of 
Holland with the Unitarianism of America; for Dr. van der Kemp, who 
had been a Mennonite preacher at Leiden, and was there known for his 
liberal tendencies, emigrated to America in 1788, where a few years 


later he became one of the founders of a liberal church at Trenton, 
N. Y., which in due time became a part of the Unitarian movement. 


DIVISION IV 


UNITARIANISM IN TRANSYLVANIA 












Kn edie 





Mii 
~ ws, 
, \ “a 
a ei aie 
¥e sy 
Seige Sy ‘an 
y ? ' inal ape al ib hh Fs titel ee ii 
a ae yee) wee Tey i SRY ee AeA a f ee Diane Tee 


He ke ¢ ih 







































‘ ' 
; é 
: _ 7 
7 
S , 
ah 
j 
\ 
st ‘ 
‘ + 
a ; ; 
| - : 
a * 
? 
Cire 
are aie 
; % 3 + 
5 
og 24 
' 
‘ 
a 5 
» as 
v : 
syle 
: 
; . 
. he Ss = 
is 
; ’ 
ner pars 
5 
y 
' ra 
4 » , 
; ; ws i 
t 4 S ; 
p ‘ 
j : Pi - 
ny i~ 
' 
~~ 
: 
17 4 
= ? 
¥ 
} 
‘ ‘ i 
‘ + 
’ 
Fw 
, 
é ty 
> 4 nF 
S r. 
‘ 
® 1 { by 
- ; ; 
4 or ' oe 4 is ihe 
a d 
‘ . aa Shee i 
y 





a ve nae 


hari it 8 Oh An 





CHAPTER XXI 


DOWN TO THE BEGINNING OF UNITARIANISM 
IN TRANSYLVANIA IN 1564 


If asked when and where Unitarianism was first organ- 
ized, the average person would be likely to answer that it 
was in America, or perhaps in England, about the begin- 
ning of the nineteenth century. He would be greatly 
amazed to be told that in a remote country of Europe 
Unitarian churches have had an unbroken history for more 
than three hundred and fifty years. That country is 
Transylvania, and we come now to the story of the heroic 
struggle of churches which began there at almost the same 
time with the separate organization of the Minor Reformed 
Church in Poland (whose tragic history has occupied the 
six preceding chapters), and which have bravely weathered 
all storms of persecution and misfortune down to the pres- 
ent day—hence by far the oldest Unitarian churches in the 
world. 

Transylvania formed (until the World War) the eastern 
quarter of the old kingdom of Hungary, to which it bore 
much the same relation as Scotland to England. It is about 
half as large as the state of Maine, or a quarter larger 
than Switzerland; hedged in on all sides by the lofty snow- 
capped Carpathians and other mountains, forest-covered, 
as the name of the country implies. It has a great variety 
of grand and beautiful natural scenery, and has been called 


the Switzerland of Hungary. One traveler writes that 
209 


210 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


whereas other lands are beautiful in spots, Transylvania 
is all beauty; while another calls it a sort of earthly para- 
dise. It has an agreeable climate, a fertile soil, and great 
mineral wealth; and ever since Roman times its mines have 
supplied a large part of the gold of Europe. 

So much for the physical background of our story. 
The history of the country has yet more to do with the de- 
velopment of it. Located on the extreme frontier of west- 
ern Europe, facing other civilizations, Transylvania has 
been in the natural path of conquest, and during sixteen 
centuries has been repeatedly overrun by armies. Early in 
the second century Trajan conquered it for the Romans, and 
it thus became the Roman province of Dacia Mediterranea. 
Trajan’s Column at Rome still stands to commemorate the 
conquest, and shows us how the inhabitants of that time 
looked. Then came various hordes of barbarians invading 
the Roman Empire, generally striking Transylvania first of 
all, plundering the land, destroying its towns and houses, 
and killing its people: the Goths in the third and fourth 
century; the Huns in the fifth, led by Attila, who struck 
such terror into Christian Europe that he was called “‘the 
scourge of God,” sent to punish the world for its sins; 
after them the Burgundians, Gepide, Lombards, and Avars, 
all leaving ruin and death in their train. Of all these it is 
the Huns that are of greatest interest to us, because when 
they. retreated eastward after their defeats in France and 
Italy, the remnants of Attila’s horde are said to have been 
stranded in the foothills of eastern Transylvania, and there 
settled in what is now known as Szeklerland. The reputed 
descendants of these, called Szeklers, form the bulk of the 
the Unitarians, a farmer people, having special political 
privileges, and hence called “nobles,” a sort of peasant 
aristocracy, altogether a very fine stock. 


BEGINNINGS IN TRANSYLVANIA 211 


In the ninth century, under Arpad, came nearly a million 
Magyars, related to the Huns, and speaking the same tongue 
with them. After ravaging Europe for two generations, 
they finally settled in Hungary, where they have lived ever 
since in their whitewashed villages—another fine race, fond 
of liberty, and with a spirit and institutions not unlike 
those of the English and Americans. Most of them are 
Calvinists or Roman Catholics. In the thirteenth century 
a new element gradually came in from the eastern shores of 
the Adriatic, the Wallacks, whose descendants (now known 
as Rumanians) speaking a modern form of the Latin tongue, 
now comprise over half of the population: the peasantry of 
the land, picturesque, ignorant, degraded, and adhering 
chiefly to the Greek Catholic Church. In the thirteenth 
century also came another deluge of half a million Mongol 
Tatars, ravaging and plundering, burning and butchering, 
leaving three quarters of Hungary in ashes; while if their 
invasion was frightful, the repeated invasions of the Turks 
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the bloody up- 
rising of the Rumanians in 1848, and last of all the desola- 
tions of the World War, have been hardly less so; and 
all these misfortunes have been further aggravated by the 
frequent plagues and famines that have followed in their 
wake. These afflictions have made of the survivors a heroic 
and self-reliant race, inured to hardship, indomitable in 
spirit, and devoted to freedom; as indeed they needed to be 
to face all the persecutions they were to suffer for their 
religious faith. 

Besides the Rumanians, the Szeklers, and the Magyars, 
of whom we have spoken, the remaining important element 
of the population of to-day are the “Saxons,” as they are 
called, all of them Lutherans in religion. They were 
brought from the region of the lower Rhine in the twelfth 


212 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


century to settle and guard the frontier country, which re- 
peated wars had left a wilderness;! and in their isolation 
from the fatherland they still preserve little changed the 
language, customs, and dress of medieval Germany. 
Gypsies, Armenians, and Jews scattered here and there 
through the country complete the list of distinct stocks 
which people Transylvania, living side by side as separate 
as drops of oil and water, and differing from one another in 
race, in language, in religion, and in customs—a most in- 
teresting patch-work of people. Amid such surroundings 
Unitarianism has had its longest home. 

After being for several centuries a part of the Kingdom 
of Hungary, the Transylvanian nobles in 1526 elected a 
king from among their own people, John Zapolya, and dur- 
ing the ten years’ war which followed they maintained their 
cause against Hungary by the aid of the Sultan; and in 
return for his protection they continued to pay him annual 
tribute for more than 150 years, electing their princes 
subject to his approval, though in other respects they had 
an independent state until 1690, when Transylvania was 
joined to Austria. King John had for his queen, Isabella, 
daughter of King Sigismund I of Poland, but he died in 
1540, only a few days after she had borne him a son, John 
Sigismund, whom the nobles elected King of Hungary soon 
after his. father’s death. He is notable for being the only 
Unitarian king in history.?, The young king was born to 
troubles, for there was in western Hungary also a rival 
king, supported in his claim by the Pope, as John was in 
his by the Sultan, and he looked with envious eyes upon 
Transylvania. Taking advantage of John’s infancy, and 


1 They settled seven fortified towns, which enjoyed special privileges. 
Hence the German name for Transylvania, Siebenbiirgen. 

2 Moses Szekely, who ruled as elected prince for but a few weeks in 
1603, might also be mentioned. See page 249. 


BEGINNINGS IN TRANSYLVANIA 213 


of the inexperience of the Queen-mother Isabella, who was 
acting as regent in his stead, he kept intriguing against 
Transylvania in every way possible. The result of many 
vicissitudes in the matter was that although John was 
nominallly King of Hungary, with dominions extending to 
the Tisza (Theiss), he actually held not much more than 
Transylvania alone; and in 1570, as the price of peace with 
the Emperor Maximilian II, it was agreed at the Diet of 
‘Speyer that he should lay aside his empty title of king and 
his claim to the Hungarian crown, in return for the acknowl- 
edgment of Transylvania’s independence of Hungary. He 
died the following year. It is in his reign that the history 
of Unitarianism in Transylvania begins. 

Christianity is said to have reached Hungary even before 
Trajan, and the Goths in the fourth century fostered the 
Arianism which they professed. At the end of the eighth 
century, however, the Avars were converted to Catholic 
Christianity under Charlemagne, and when Transylvania 
was conquered in 1002 by St. Stephen, the first Christian 
king of Hungary, its inhabitants perforce accepted his 
religion. Hungary was too far away from Rome, however, 
and the Hungarians were of too independent spirit, for the 
Roman Church to gain complete power there. The simple, 
scriptural form of Christianity taught by the Albigenses and 
Waldenses was widely spread from the twelfth to the four- 
teenth century, and the reformation of the Hussites won 
many adherents a century later; and much persecution failed 
to suppress these heresies. The soil was thus well prepared 
for the Protestant Reformation. 

As early as 1520 Saxon merchants returning from Ger- 
many brought Luther’s books to Transylvania, where they 
found many eager readers; while two monks returning from 
Wittenberg preached the Reformation. Severe laws were 


214 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


passed to prevent the spread of the heresy, some books 
were seized and burnt, and two persons were put to death by 
John Zapolya; but wars were on hand, the laws were not 
much enforced, and so the Reformation spread more rapidly 
in Hungary than in any other land. By 1535 all the Saxons 
had become Lutherans, and the Magyars and Szeklers 
rapidly followed, until at length only three of the magnates 
remained faithful to the Catholic Church, and even these 
attended Protestant worship. In 1556 the Catholic priests 
were driven out, and the church property was confiscated 
or given over to the Protestants; Hungarian students went 
in hundreds every year to Wittenburg to prepare for the 
Protestant ministry, and Catholicism seemed all but extinct. 
Nevertheless at the Diet of Torda in 1557 legal toleration 
of both religions was established when Isabella decreed, ‘in 
order that each might hold the faith which he wished, with 
the new rites as well as with the old, that this should be 
permitted him at his own free will.’ Save for the similar 
decree in the Grisons in 1526,! this was the first law in 
Christian Europe guaranteeing equal liberty to both re- 
ligions.”. The principle of full toleration to all religions 
was slow in developing, and was not realized until very long 
afterwards. 

At this same Diet of Torda it was decided to establish a 
national synod where the Protestant ministers might soberly 
discuss the serious differences of view which were already 
arising among them about the Lord’s Supper. This had 
already long been the subject of fierce controversy between 

1 See page 74. 

2The chief design of this decree evidently was to protect Catholics 
from persecution by Protestants. At this time Mohammedan Turkey 


allowed fuller religious liberty than Christian Europe, and more than 
once early Antitrinitarians were obliged to go there for refuge. (Cf. 


page 68.) ; 


BEGINNINGS IN TRANSYLVANIA 215 


Lutherans and Calvinists elsewhere, the Lutherans holding 
that the body and blood of Christ are present in the bread 
and wine, while the Swiss reformers held that these are only 
symbols. Calvin’s doctrine had come into Hungary in 1550, 
and was rapidly infecting the Lutheran Protestants there, 
and Calvinistic churches were now being formed. In the 
end most of the Magyars and Szeklers became Calvinists, 
while the Saxons remained Lutherans; but the separation 
was preceded by some years of angry dispute. It is in one 
of the earliest of these discussions that we first hear, in 1556, 
of one Francis David (of whom we shall soon hear a great 
deal as the hero of this part of our story) taking part 
on the Lutheran side; and he was for some time the leader 
of the opposition to Calvinism among the Hungarian 
Protestants. The king became concerned lest the violent 
quarrels which were distracting the Church should also dis- 
turb the peace of the state, and he had synods called to 
see whether harmony could not be restored; but nothing was 
accomplished. The Diet of Torda therefore in 1563 re- 
newed and confirmed its earlier decree of toleration, order- 
ing “that each may embrace the religion that he prefers, 
without any compulsion, and may be free to support preach- 
ers of his own faith, and in the use of the sacraments, and 
that neither party must do injury or violence to the other.” 
Seeing that all other efforts proved vain, the king at length 
settled the matter at the synod of Nagy Enyed the next 
year, by ordering the parties to separate into two distinct 
churches, each with its own superintendent or bishop. 
Transylvania thus took another step toward religious tolera- 
tion, having now three recognized churches, the Catholic, the 
Lutheran, and the Reformed. 

While these things were going on, seeds of Unitarianism 
were also beginning to sprout. It might almost be said 


216 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


that the Hungarians had been predisposed to that doctrine 
by their history. As we have already seen, Arian Christian- 
ity flourished here under the Gothic occupation. In 351 
also Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium (Mitrovicz) on the 
Save, was condemned as a heretic and banished for holding 
that Christ’s nature was essentially human. His heresy 
long survived him in those parts, and Unitarians have often 
been called Photinians.. Arianism existed more or less 
widely spread as late as the formal conversion of the 
Hungarians to orthodox Christianity in 1002; and even 
after that it fused with the faith of the Albigenses and 
Waldenses until the fifteenth century, and was widely spread 
among the people. Early in the Reformation period Ana- 
baptists had also been here and prepared the way, and the 
writings of Servetus had been read and his doctrines had 
gained scattered followers, so that the first Protestant synod 
in Hungary had found it necessary as early as 1545 to con- 
demn opponents of the Trinity. The first prophet of 
Unitarianism in Hungary was one Thomas Aran, who in 
1558 wrote a clear and bold book denying the Trinity, and 
in 1561 began to preach his doctrine at Debreczen, the 
very Geneva of Hungarian Calvinism. The Calvinist 
preacher there, Peter Melius, was aroused like a Hungarian 
Calvin to put down the heresy. A public discussion was 
arranged, and the question was debated for four days; 
when such pressure was put upon Aran by the civil power 
that he confessed defeat and retracted, though he later pro- 
fessed Unitarianism again in Transylvania. His teachings, 
however, were discussed in various synods, and had spread so 
far that Melius felt obliged to publish a book against them. 
Not a few churches adopted them, both in the northern 
counties where he had taught and in the great plain of 
Lower Hungary. 


BEGINNINGS IN TRANSYLVANIA 217 


It was in Transylvania, however, that Unitarianism had 
its most important influence. The real forerunner of Unita- 
rianism here was Stancaro. He had come to Transylvania 
in 1553, and for five years he persistently advocated the 
same views of the work of Christ which he spread a little 
later in Poland.1 He was bitterly opposed, by David and 
others, and at length was expelled and went to Poland, 
where we have already noted his career. Although he did 
not himself deny the Trinity or the deity of Christ, the 
result of his teaching was in both countries the same, to 
pave the way for others to deny them. Unitarian doc- 
trines were little likely, however, to make much headway 
against orthodox opposition unless they could have the back- 
ing and leadership of some person of considerable influence. 
Such a leader now came upon the scene in the person of 
Biandrata, who may be credited with successfully introduc- 
ing Unitarianism into Transylvania. We have already met 
him in Switzerland, and in Poland.? In 1554, when he was 
court physician to Queen Bona of Poland, she had sent him 
to Transylvania to attend her daughter, the young Queen 
Isabella, with her little son, the young Prince John 
Sigismund ; and he had then lived at the Transylvanian court 
for eight years. It was but natural, therefore, that when 
the young king lay dangerously ill in 1563 he should send for 
the able physician of his boyhood. Biandrata was glad 
enough to escape from a position in Poland which Calvin’s 
efforts against him had made disagreeable and might make 
dangerous, and to accept the high post of court physician 
to the King of Transylvania.® 

Until his sixteenth year John Sigismund’s education had 


1See page 126. 
2See pages 104, 105, 129, 132. 
3See page 132. 


218 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


been under Catholic influences, but he had now for several 
years supported the Reformation as a Lutheran. He had 
already driven out the priests and monks from the land; 
and now that he was hard beset by foes in war and by con- 
spiracies which his enemies had stirred up against him at 
home, he sought consolation in religion, and interested him- 
self seriously in the further reform of it. He was now 
twenty-three, and the Italian officer who commanded his 
body guard wrote home to his sovereign, the Grand-Duke 
Cosimo de’ Medici, giving a most interesting and admiring 
sketch, which is still extant. Though of slight physique, 
he says, and not strong of health, the king was skillful in 
all manly sports. He was highly intelligent, and spoke 
eight languages; of refined tastes and manners, and with a 
charming personality; brave, industrious, generous, and 
frank, distinguished for his personal virtues, and devoted to 
religion. His residence was at Gyulafehervar,’ which thus 
becomes an important place in our history. 

Biandrata, on the other hand, was now in the prime of 
life, and by his adventurous history, his handsome appear- 
ance, his courtly manners, and his eloquence he made a 
marked impression upon the king and at court, where he 
soon became the leading figure. Within a year he had won 
the confidence of the king to such a degree as to be made 
his private counsellor, and was presently rewarded by the 
handsome gift of three villages, and given the privileges of 
a noble; though just because of his great influence with 
the king he was feared, rather than popular, at court. He 
lost none of his interest in the reform of theology, but still 
kept in communication with the brethren in Poland; and 

1 Also called Alba Julia, or Weissenburg; later known as Kar- 


olyfehervar, or Karlsburg. Hungarian proper names are a study in 
themselves ! 


BEGINNINGS IN TRANSYLVANIA 219 


finding the king also deeply interested in religion he eagerly 
seconded and guided his impulses for further reformation, 
proceeding cautiously, and not at first disclosing how far he 
had himself gone. They must have talked much of theology 
from the first, for within a few months, when the controversy 
over the Lord’s Supper! was at its critical stage in 1564, 
the king sent ‘his most excellent Giorgio Biandrata, his 
physician, an eminent man, learned and uncommonly well 
versed in the Scriptures,’ to the general synod at Nagy 
Enyed at which the Calvinists were finally separated from 
the Lutherans, with full power and authority to take part 
in the discussion and if possible settle the controversy. 
Biandrata here of course took the side of progress and sup- 
ported the Calvinists, and here too he discovered in David, 
who was the leader on the Calvinist side of the debate, a 
man admirably suited to promote in Transylvania the 
further reform in which he had himself taken a part in 
Poland. As David was soon to become the great leader of 
Unitarianism in Transylvania, its hero, martyr, and idol, 
we must here turn aside from our narrative to see who and 
what he was. 


1See page 214. 


CHAPTER XXII 


FRANCIS DAVID AND THE RISE OF UNITA- 
RIANISM IN TRANSYLVANIA, 1564-1569 


Francis David* was born at Kolozsvar (Klausenburg), 
the capital of Transylvania, about 1510, and was thus 
a close contemporary of Calvin and Servetus, and a few 
years older than Biandrata. He was the son of a shoe- 
maker, and perhaps a Saxon, though he spoke and wrote 
both German and Hungarian, as well as Latin, with perfect 
fluency. He was doubtless first educated at the school of 
the Franciscan monks at Kolozsvar, and later went to the 
cathedral school at Gyulafehervar, where he showed him- 
self a brilliant student, and made influential acquaintances. 
After being in the service of the church here for a time, 
he was sent by a wealthy friend to the University of Witten- 
berg, where many Catholic students still went in spite of 
Luther’s heresy centering there. He may also have studied 
at Padua. After two or three years he returned home in 
1551 an accomplished scholar and became rector of a 
Catholic school at Besztercze for two years, and was then for 
two years more parish priest of a large village in the same 
county. Many of the Catholic clergy of the vicinity were 
then accepting the doctrines of the Reformation. David 
joined them, gave up his priesthood, and became a Lutheran. 
His reputation was already such that three of the most 

1The Latin form, Franciscus Davidis, is often found. The name in 


Hungarian is David Ferencz. 
220 


EARLY UNITARIANISM IN TRANSYLVANIA 221 


important Protestant churches in the country called him to 
their service. He accepted the call to his old home at 
Kolozsvar, where he spent the remaining twenty-four years 
of his life, in a position of the greatest influence, and idol- 
ized by his people. 

David’s rise was now rapid. He seems to have been made 
rector of the Lutheran school in 1555, and chief minister 
of the largest church the following year; while by 1557, 
having already won a great reputation by his brilliant de- 
bates against Stancaro and the Calvinists,! and thus come 
to be recognized as the leader of the Reformation in 
Transylvania, he was bishop (or superintendent) of the 
Hungarian Lutherans. He was, however, by nature, of an 
open mind, and after debating against the Calvinist view 
of the Lord’s Supper for several years, he was at length 
won over to it by its chief defender, Melius, and accord- 
ingly resigned his office of bishop in 1559. Though the 
Lutherans expelled him from their synod in 1560, he still 
kept his pastorate, and tried to the very end to prevent a 
split in the church. He took an active part in the debates 
that occupied every synod, and now came to be regarded 
the leader of the Calvinists as he had formerly been that of 
the Lutherans. His persuasive eloquence won the king and 
many of the magnates to the new view, and when the two 
churches were separated in 1564 it was but natural that 
Biandrata should have used his powerful influence to have 
another removed and Dayid appointed in his stead, first 
as court preacher, and then as bishop—this second time as 
bishop of the new Reformed Church in Transylvania. 

David was now at the very summit of his powers, the most 
eloquent and famous preacher and the ablest public debater 
in Transylvania; so well versed in Scripture that he seemed 


1See pages 215, 217. 


222 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


to have the whole Bible at his tongue’s end, while in debat- 
ing a point of doctrine he would quote texts and compare 
passages with a readiness that often put his opponents to 
confusion. Having David at court, Biandrata now be- 
came intimate with him, and confided to him his hopes of a 
further reformation of the doctrines of the Church. 
Biandrata, taught by his past experiences in Italy, Switzer- 
land, and Poland, was cautious and moved slowly. David 
was bold and fearless. In that very year, in the king’s 
presence at the Diet of Segesvar, he openly spoke against 
the Trinity ; and the king, instead of objecting, only smiled. 
In 1566 David found one of the professors in the Kolozsvar 
schoo] teaching the old doctrine about the Trinity, and 
ventured to correct him. The teacher, angered, publicly 
charged David with heresy. David had him removed, and 
then began carefully and systematically to preach the unity 
of God from his Kolozsvar pulpit. The teacher went to 
Hungary and joined Melius who, with the spirit of a new 
Athanasius, made himself the champion of orthodoxy, and 
from Calvin and Beza brought the king warnings against 
Biandrata, and asked that a synod be called to debate the 
matter. 

Prolonged and heated controversy followed, and from now 
on for nearly five years there were almost every month 
debates over the doctrine of the Trinity at synod, Diet, or 
public debate. Many of these discussions took the shape 
of forma] disputations, in which each side appointed its 
best debaters to present and defend carefully framed theses 
and antitheses, while stenographic reports were taken by 
the secretaries. At several of these the king himself pre- 
sided and occasionally took part, while the clergy and the 
nobles from far and near would be present in large numbers. 


The records would then be published on a press which the 


EARLY UNITARIANISM IN TRANSYLVANIA 223 


king had already provided for Biandrata and David to use 
in their work of reformation, and these became valuable 
documents for propaganda throughout the whole country ; 
for people at that time were as keenly interested in these 
themes as they can now be in the most burning political 
questions. 

Public discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity began in 
Transylvania at the national synod held at Gyulafehervar, 
and thence adjourned to Torda, early in 1566. The min- 
isters present, under the leadership of Biandrata and David, 
after accepting the Apostles’ Creed, adopted a statement 
of their belief on the Trinity which gave it a Unitarian in- 
terpretation, and rejected the Athanasian doctrine as un- 
tenable. At another synod a few weeks later they expressed 
their belief more fully and carefully, and soon afterwards 
they published a catechism. Their purpose, like that of 
Servetus and the Polish Brethren, seems to have been simply 
to restore the doctrine of the New Testament and the 
primitive Church, as a basis on which all Christians might 
unite, 

Melius, who had by now become bishop of the Reformed 
Church in Hungary, had thus far been disputing on hostile 
territory, where the liberals were in the majority; the next 
year he therefore called a synod at Debreczen in his own 
district, and got some strongly orthodox propositions 
adopted, while the Helvetic Confession just adopted in 
Switzerland as a bar to further heresy there * was signed by 
his ministers. In Transylvania meanwhile the press was 
busy on the other side, especially with a book On the True 
and the False Knowledge of the One God, which sought, 
among other things, to ridicule the absurdities of the doc- 
trine of the Trinity by means of coarse pictures, and there- 


1 See page 110. 


224 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


fore greatly angered the orthodox, while it made an indelible 
impression upon the minds of the common people. In his 
dedication of this book to the king, David makes a plea for 
toleration which is far in advance of his age: ‘There is 
no greater piece of folly than to try to exercise power over 
conscience and soul, both of which are subject only to their 
Creator.” This spirit found sympathy with the king, and 
soon afterwards, at a Diet at Torda in January, 1568, where 
David made an eloquent plea for religious toleration, the 
decrees of 1557 and 1563+ were renewed and strengthened. 
The king decreed “that preachers shall be allowed to preach 
the Gospel everywhere, each according to his own under- 
standing of it. If the community wish to accept such 
preaching, well and good; if not, they shall not be compelled, 
but shall be allowed to keep the preachers they prefer. 
No one shall be made to suffer on account of his religion, 
since faith is the gift of God.” This is the Magna Charta 
of religion in Transylvania, and it deserves to be remembered 
as a golden date in Unitarian history, for it saved the 
Unitarian faith from being crushed out there as it was in 
other lands. In the generation in which it was passed, the 
Inquisition was doing its worst to crush Protestantism in 
Spain and Italy, Alva was putting Protestants to death 
by the thousands in the Netherlands, and the massacre of 
St. Bartholomew with its 20,000 or 30,000 victims in France 
was yet four years in the future; while deniers of the 
Trinity were still to be burned alive in England for more 
than forty years. It long stood as the most advanced step 
in toleration yet taken in Europe; and the king who passed 
this enlightened law was but twenty-eight years old. 
Melius, displeased with the way things were running, now 
1See pages 214, 215. 


EARLY UNITARIANISM IN TRANSYLVANIA = 225 


sought to stem the tide by inviting the Transylvanian min- 
isters to a joint debate at Debreczen in Hungary, where 
everything was strongly orthodox; but as this was out of 
the jurisdiction of King John, so that they could not enjoy 
the protection of his tolerant laws, and as a few weeks before 
an antitrinitarian minister had been seized in that vicinity 
and imprisoned without trial, Biandrata suspected a plot, 
and would not let the invitation be accepted. Instead, the 
king, wishing to see the debated questions settled, and to 
quiet the disturbances that were arising out of them, sum- 
moned a general synod of the ministers of both Hungary and 
Transylvania to meet in his own palace at Gyulafehervar, 
to hear a formal debate on the subject. Five debaters, led 
by Biandrata and David, represented the Unitarian side, 
while on the side of the Calvinists were six speakers, headed 
by their bishop, Melius. It was the greatest debate in 
the whole history of Unitarianism. It took place at 
Gyualafehervar in the great hall of the palace before the 
king, the whole court, and a great throng of ministers and 
nobles, who occasionally enlivened the proceedings by their 
questions or comments. The debate began on March 8, 
1568, at five o’clock in the morning, with solemn prayers 
on each side; it was conducted in Latin, and lasted ten full 
days. Melius appealed to the authority of the Bible, the 
creeds, the Fathers, and the orthodox theologians ; David, to 
the Bible alone. The discussion began with some heat, 
which did not much cool off as it went on. On the ninth 
day the Calvinists asked to be excused from listening 
further. The king intimated that this would be confessing 
defeat, and they remained; but as nothing was being ac- 
complished to bring the parties to agree (how could it ever 
have been really expected?) the king ended the debate the 


226 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


next day, recommending that the ministers give themselves 
to prayer, seek harmony, and refrain from mutual abuse as 
unbecoming in them. 

The debate was generally regarded as a complete victory 
for the Unitarians, whose side the king evidently favored; 
but the Calvinist historian’s comment is that it ended with- 
out any profit to the Church of Christ, which was perhaps 
his way of stating the same thing. In the course of the 
debate Biandrata showed himself a poor debater, and he 
did not enter public discussion again; but David, who 
opened and closed the debate, and was ready with a con- 
vincing answer to every question or objection, covered him- 
self with glory. He now returned home to Kolozsvar. The 
news of his triumph had preceded him. The streets were 
crowded to receive him. Without waiting for him to get 
to the church, the people made him mount a large boulder 
at a street corner (it is still preserved by the Unitarians of 
Kolozsvar as a sacred relic) and speak to them of his 
victorious new doctrine. They received his word with the 
greatest enthusiasm, and after a time they took him on 
their shoulders and carried him to the great church in the 
square, where he went on with his sermon. His eloquence 
was so persuasive that on that day, so the tradition runs, 
the whole population of Kolozsvar accepted the Unitarian 
faith.t Not quite the whole, however; for the Lutheran 
Saxons of Kolozsvar were so disgusted with this proceeding 
that they left the city forthwith, and had it removed from 
the number of their seven fortified towns which had for 
centuries enjoyed special privileges granted to the Saxons.’ 
From now on for many years Kolozsvar was practically a 


1 By a confusion of dates between the two debates at Gyulafehervar 
(see page 223), this event is often wrongly placed in 1566 instead 
of 1568. 

2See page 212n. 


EARLY UNITARIANISM IN TRANSYLVANIA 227 


Unitarian city, all its churches and schools were Unitarian, 
and all the members of the city Council and the higher 
officials were Unitarians. In this year, 1568, David for 
the third time became bishop, this time of the Unitarian 
churches. 

Being thus defeated in Transylvania, the Calvinists now 
appealed to the judgment of the professors in the German 
universities, who were considered the highest authorities in 
Protestant Europe on questions of theology. Of course the 
replies were in their favor, for all Germany was orthodox; 
and several of the professors wrote books against Da- 
vid and Biandrata, and tried to stir up feeling against 
them. They also began somewhat to rally their forces in 
Transylvania; while in Hungary, all through the year 1568, 
they kept holding synods in different districts, confirming 
the orthodox doctrine and condemning the Antitrinitarians. 
Disregarding the king’s decree of tolerance, they persecuted 
and drove out ministers holding Unitarian views, if they 
would not deny their faith, and forbade them to speak in 
their own defense, lest they thus make more converts to their 
views. 

Many, however, wished that a discussion might be held 
in the Hungarian language, which they could all understand. 
David therefore determined to carry the war into the enemy’s 
country, and with the king’s sanction called another synod 
to meet at Nagyvarad (Grosswardein) October 10, 1569. 
The orthodox clergy denied his right to summon them to a 
synod, having in Melius a bishop of their own, and at first 
were unwilling to attend, though at length they yielded. 
The conditions of the debate were carefully drawn, and 
officers appointed as usual]. David presented a statement of 
his faith and of the propositions he stood ready to defend. 
His opponents offered counter-arguments, and presented 


228 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


propositions of their own, signed by sixty ministers. Gas- 
par Bekes presided, the most powerful magnate in the king- 
dom, and the king’s most intimate councillor. The king 
and his court were present with many generals and magnates, 
and the leading clergy from both Transylvania and Hun- 
gary; and he himself frequently took part in the discus- 
sion. The attendance was larger than even at Gyulafeher- 
var. There were nine disputants on each side, though the 
debate was mainly between David and Melius, and was 
carried on with the greatest intensity. On one occasion 
Melius attacked David with such violence that the king 
himself rebuked him, and suggested that if the orthodox 
ministers did not believe in freedom of conscience they had 
better remove to some other country. “We wish that in 
our dominions,” said he, “there be freedom of conscience; 
for we know that faith is the gift of God, and that one’s 
conscience can not be forced.” David pleaded eloquently 
for religious liberty. After six days the king saw that 
nothing further could be gained, and having charged the 
orthodox with evading the real issue he closed the debate. 
He, Bekes, the court, and the majority of the company 
were won to David’s views, and henceforth the king clearly 
accepted the Unitarian faith. The orthodox minority con- 
tented themselves with drawing up and signing a confession 
of faith of their own, condemning David and his views. 
This was the decisive debate in the controversy over the 
Trinity, and it clinched the victory won at Gyulafehervar 
two years before. 


CHAPTER XXIII 


UNITARIANISM IN TRANSYLVANIA UNTIL THE 
DEATH OF FRANCIS DAVID, 1569-1579 


The churches accepting David’s views had now definitely 
separated from those of the orthodox faith, although it 
does not appear precisely when or precisely how the division 
was finally effected. They had thus far no distinctive name 
of their own. For a time the ministers signed themselves 
“ministers of the Evangelical profession”; in laws of 1576 
they are mentioned as “those holding the religion of Francis 
David”; and as late as 1577 a vote of the Diet of Torda 
refers to them merely as “of the other religion’; while 
since the center of their power was at Kolozsvar, the 
churches and their bishop were also long spoken of as “of 
the Kolozsvar Confession.” There is some reason to think 
that in the debate between David and Melius the name 
Unitarian was already applied to the party of David, 
though it is not found in records until 1600, and it did not 
become the authorized designation of the Church until 1638. 
The guess of a Calvinist historian writing in the middle of 
the eighteenth century, that the name was derived from a 
union between the four religions of Transylvania in 1568, 
though it has often been quoted as authentic, must be dis- 
missed as incorrect. The name is undoubtedly derived from 
Unitarians’ belief in the wnity of God, as the name Trin- 
itarian was supposed to be derived from belief in the Trinity. 


Catholic writers of the period, however, commonly called 
229 


230 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the Unitarians Trinitarians (as Servetus had called Calvin), 
meaning by that nearly the same as tritheists. The name 
Unitarian, which thus originated in Transylvania, was at 
length taken up by the later Socinians, and thence passed 
to England and America. 

We are now at the golden age of Unitarianism in 
Transylvania, when the new faith rapidly spread in all di- 
rections, as rings spread on the water. The king had 
openly given it his adherence, and so of course the court 
followed his example to make doubly sure of enjoying his 
favor. At one time seven of his councillors became 
Unitarians; generals, judges, and many of the higher offi- 
cials followed, until there remained hardly a family of im- 
portance that had not accepted the new faith. Its strength 
was especially in the larger towns and in the villages of 
Szeklerland; while able professors whom David had secured, 
some of them distinguished refugees from persecution in 
other countries, taught it in thirteen higher schools or 
colleges, chief of which was the college founded by the king 
at Kolozsvar, and occupying the buildings of an abandoned 
Dominican monastery. The press, too, was unceasingly ac- 
tive in the cause, and in the one year 1568 no fewer than 
twelve works, eight of them by David himself, were pub- 
lished in Latin for scholars, or in Hungarian for the com- 
mon people. As in Poland,’ so here, when a noble became 
Unitarian, the churches on his estates were likely to be 
placed under ministers of his faith, and thus became Uni- 
tarian also. Before David died there were far over 
three hundred Unitarian churches in Transylvania and the 
neighboring counties of Hungary; and before the end of the 
century some four hundred and twenty-five, beside some 


1See page 128 n. 


UNITARIANISM TO DAVID’S DEATH 231 


sixty more in lower Hungary. This considerably exceeded 
the number in Poland. 

There was one misgiving to trouble David’s mind. So 
long as the king lived, they were sure of his protection 
and sympathy; but he was not in strong health—suppose 
he should die? To be sure, freedom of worship and preach- 
ing had been decreed, and persecution on account of re- 
ligion had been forbidden; but the Unitarian Church had 
no such legal standing as the other churches had. David 
urged this matter upon the attention of the king, and he 
was not slow to respond. At the Diet of Maros Vasarhely 
held early in 1571, after ample discussion, the king granted 
the people and church of Kolozsvar certain privileges which 
had been impaired by the withdrawal of the Saxons; and, 
what was of more importance, he established perfect equality 
of the four chief religions, Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and 
Unitarian. These were henceforth known as the four “ 
ceived religions”: that is, while other religions might be 


re- 


merely tolerated, these were legally recognized and pro- 
tected, and their members had the right to hold high public 
office. This action crowned the broad policy of King John 
Sigismund with regard to religious matters. All rulers of 
Transylvania were required henceforth to take oath at 
coronation to preserve the equal rights secured by this 
decree, and it has ever since been the most prized and the 
first mentioned of all the rights the constitution grants. 
It is worth more than passing notice that at the only time 
in history when there has been a Unitarian king on the 
throne, and a Unitarian government in power, they used 
their power not to oppress other forms of religion, nor to 
secure exceptional privileges for their own, but to insist 
upon equal rights and privileges for all. 


232 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Less than two months after this act the king died. The 
day after the Diet rose, while he was about to go to one 
of his castles for a rest, he was seriously injured by a 
runaway accident. His health was already frail, complica- 
tions set in, and he passed away at Gyulafehervar March 
15, 1571, not yet thirty-one years old. He was deeply 
mourned, for, apart from animosities arising out of religion, 
he had been popular with his subjects for his qualities of 
mind and heart and for his personal character, and was 
known for his justice and mercy. During his whole reign 
he had had to contend with enemies who coveted his throne 
and land, and who were constantly inciting troubles within 
his kingdom. Nine times his life had been attempted. He 
died childless, for though he would gladly have married, his 
enemies repeatedly prevented such an alliance, urging 
against him that he was an abandoned heretic, but really 
desiring to see his line become extinct, that they might ob- 
tain his crown. Though always in delicate health he more 
than once showed himself an able general and a resourceful 
statesman; and realizing that Transylvania would fare 
best if separate from Hungary, he followed a policy which 
laid the foundation for a century of independent national 
life for his country. He fostered science and art, was the 
friend of scholars and the patron of education, doing much 
to found and support schools and colleges; but above all 
else he was interested in religion, and no name among mod- 
ern rulers deserves to stand higher than his for his pioneer 
work in the cause of equal freedom to different religions. 
Let him be remembered by us in honor as the one Unitarian 
king. 

While Unitarianism was thus rapidly gaining ground in 
Transylvania, a more modest growth was also at the same 
time taking place in Hungary proper. Though his control 


UNITARIANISM TO DAVID’S DEATH ~— 233 


of them was disputed, King John Sigismund was supposed 
to rule over ten or twelve of the Hungarian counties north 
and west of Transylvania; and although the Calvinists were 
strongly in the majority there, Unitarians were in the less 
danger of being persecuted in those parts. The chief 
apostle of the faith in the upper counties was Lukas Egri, 
minister of the church at Ungvar, and one of the most learned 
ministers in the country. He won so many converts to his 
views that the synod was forced to take notice of it in 1566, 
when he presented a statement of belief that was regarded 
as unsound as to the Trinity, though no action was then 
taken. Two years later the orthodox called another synod 
at Kassa, under the auspices of the Catholic General 
Schwendi who was in command there. Egri was summoned 
to attend, and presented twenty-seven theses, which were 
debated. He was condemned as heretical; and as he refused 
to retract and sign an orthodox confession, the general 
threw him into prison without further trial,’ and there he 
lay for five long years, nor was he released until three years 
after he had recanted. The spread of Unitarianism in 
Hungary was also much furthered by the last great con- 
troversy between David and Melius at Nagyvarad in 1569.” 
Soon after that, Stephen Balasz (Basilius) succeeded in 
converting a church of 3,000 members at Nagyvarad to the 
Unitarian faith, and this church, with its fine school attached, 
lasted far on into the next century. A little later Unita- 
rianism was preached even at Debreczen, as well as at 
numerous other places east of the Tisza, and even as far 
west as Esztergom (Gran), and Melius had to exert him- 
self to the utmost to prevent its spread in other centers in 
Hungary. 


1 See page 225. 
2 See page 227. 


234 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


In Lower Hungary the Unitarian faith spread much faster 
yet. That district was then under the rule of the Sultan, 
who allowed much greater religious freedom than did either 
Catholics or orthodox Protestants. After his successful 
work at Nagyvarad, Balasz proved a most effective mission- 
ary in that region, spreading his faith from city to city 
south and west. He soon called two ministers from Tran- 
sylvania to assist him, and others followed them. They 
held the usual public debates, and their progress through 
the country was a triumphal procession. They came at 
length to have in the two counties of Temes and Baranya 
alone more than sixty churches, many of them with schools, 
of which the chief were at Temesvar, the seat of the Turkish 
government, and at the old university city of Pecs (Fiinf- 
kirchen), which also had a famous school and became an ac- 
tive missionary center for the region. Government officials 
joined the movement and assisted it with their wealth; and 
after King John’s death, the press which he had given the 
Unitarians at Gyulafehervar was brought here, and through 
the circulation of Unitarian books many of the Calvinist 
ministers of the county were converted. After a few years 
these churches became separated from those in Transyl- 
vania, and had their own “Bishop of Lower Hungary,” Paul 
Karadi, whose seat was at Temesvar. 

Not all went smoothly, however. <A tragic discussion was 
held in 1574, in which the Calvinist preacher Vorésmarti de- 
bated against the Unitarians Lukas Tolnai and George Al- 
vinezi. The Calvinists won the debate, and their bishop 
thereupon induced the local government to condemn their 
opponents to death. Tolnai escaped to Pecs, where he was 
protected; but Alvinczi was hanged. A bold move was then 
made. <A wealthy Unitarian living in the vicinity, despite 
the fact that a complainant had been beheaded some years 


UNITARIANISM TO DAVID’S DEATH 235 


before, complained of the matter to the Turkish Pasha at 
Buda, and demanded as a satisfaction for the death of Al- 
vinezi that the Calvinistic bishop also be put to death. The 
bishop was ordered to appear. He maintained that he had 
acted within the law. <A disputation was ordered, with 
three debaters on each side, and it took place before a great 
crowd representing Catholics, Greeks, Reformed, Unitari- 
ans, Jews, and Turks. The Pasha decided at the end that 
the execution of Alvinczi had been inhuman, and condemned 
the three Calvinists to death as murderers. The orthodox 
were in a panic at the prospect of having to take some of 
their own medicine, and interceded for the lives of the three. 
The Unitarians supported their plea, saying they did not 
wish revenge. After lying in prison for some time in sus- 
pense, the three were released upon payment of a large ran- 
som, and a large further annual tribute was levied on the 
whole province. This was both more satisfactory to the 
Calvinists and more profitable to the Pasha than an execu- 
tion would have been. The Calvinists did not venture to 
repeat the offense. Later discussions were milder in their 
tone, and at a famous one at Pecs in 1588 between the Uni- 
tarian missionary Valaszuti and the Calvinist scholar Ska- 
ricza, the Unitarian side was victorious. 

To return to Transylvania. The death of King John 
Sigismund was the beginning of sorrows for the Unitarians. 
They had hoped that his successor might be Gaspar Bekes,* 
who was the king’s own choice, and had been his high cham- 
berlain and closest adviser; for he would carry out the po- 
litical policies that John had at heart, and he was also a 
Unitarian; but unfortunately he was absent on a political 
mission when the king died. His enemies intrigued against 
him in his absence, and his rival’s brother was in command 


1See page 228, 


236 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


of the army; so that, although he returned home as soon 
as possible, and mustered all his forces at the Diet follow- 
ing, the nobles chose one who was like themselves a Magyar, 
though a Catholic, and one of the very few magnates who 
had remained in that faith. 

Upon receiving the crown the new prince, Stephen Ba- 
thori, was required to take oath to protect the four received 
religions in all their rights; and he was, for his time, a fair 
and just ruler, who declared that it was a grievous crime 
for one to try to rule the conscience of another. Although 
unfriendly to the Reformation, he promoted Calvinists and 
Lutherans to public office without prejudice; but he set his 
face against Unitarianism, and determined by all fair means 
to check its spread. Moreover, as his rival Bekes had been 
an eminent Unitarian leader, and as most of his followers 
had been of that faith, and as they had raised an insurrec- 
tion, refusing to acknowledge Stephen’s authority, the whole 
Unitarian community of course fell under suspicion of being 
not only heretical but also disloyal. He therefore at once 
began an anti-Unitarian movement, which was of course 
eagerly fostered by the Lutherans and Calvinists. The 
king removed all Unitarians from court and from high pub- 
lic office, and he appointed another court preacher in place 
of David. Reviving an old law, he made it impossible for 
them to print their books without his leave, and he thus cut 
off one of the chief means they had used to spread their 
faith. The Unitarian printer was exiled, and took his press 
to Pecs in Hungary.’ 

Another line of attack was upon the teaching of the Uni- 
tarians. The Diet decreed in 1572 and 1573 that any “in- 
novators,” introducing further reforms or changes in reli- 
gion, should be excommunicated and banished, or even im- 


1See page 234. 


UNITARIANISM TO DAVID’S DEATH 237 


prisoned or put to death for blasphemy, at the discretion 
of the prince, and we shall soon see to what this led. In 
1574 David’s life and teaching were investigated at the 
synod of Nagy Enyed in order if possible to discover 
some scandal that might humiliate him and destroy his in- 
fluence. Each year things went from bad to worse. In 
1575 Bekes was utterly defeated, many of his followers were 
killed in battle, over two score of the Unitarian magnates 
were executed as rebels, more were mutilated, and a large 
number of the nobles were degraded from their rank and had 
their property confiscated; his party (mostly Szeklers) was 
almost exterminated.1. With the Unitarian cause so shat- 
tered, the prince now attempted to proselyte those that 
were left, though with little success. 

All this time Biandrata had managed to retain his posi- 
tion as court physician, and continued to be high in the 
counsels of the prince. When the throne of Poland fell 
vacant in 1574, and Stephen became a candidate for it, he 
sent Biandrata thither in his interest, and it was largely 
through his physician’s efforts that Stephen received the 
election in the following year.* But for him, perhaps the 
Unitarians might have fared far worse than they did; and it 
is significant that soon afterwards, at the Diet of 1576, the 
office of the Unitarian bishop was given legal recognition. 
Stephen left the government of Transylvania to his brother 
Christopher as regent, who proved less tolerant than he, and 
more determined to restore the Catholic Church; but despite 
objections from Catholic quarters he still retained Bian- 
drata in his service and in his place at court. In the year 


1 Bekes now fled the country, but afterwards came again into favor 
with Stephen when the latter was King of Poland, and did him val- 
uable service as a general against the Russians. He died in Lithuania 
eight days before David. 

2 See page 166. 


238 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


after Christopher took control, further measures were taken 
to restrict the activity of the Unitarians. The Diet or- 
dered that their bishop be forbidden to visit their churches 
and to hold synods except at Kolozsvar and Torda, where 
they were most numerous. Elsewhere the oversight of the 
churches was assigned to the Reformed superintendent, with 
leave to convert them to Calvinism if he could. In Szekler- 
land this rule was in force for more than a century, much to 
the detriment of the Unitarian cause, as we shall see. Even 
the Reformed were forbidden to make other proselytes. 
Every effort was thus made to give the Catholics a chance 
to win the country back to their own faith, and in 1579 the 
prince appealed to the Jesuits to come and assist in restor- 
ing the influence of their church, as they had been asked to 
do in Poland fifteen years before. They came with alac- 
rity, and with his support at once set up schools at Nagy- 
varad and Kolozsvar ; while at Gyulafehervar, where Christo- 
pher gave them the Unitarian school, he at once put the 
young Prince Sigismund under their instruction. ‘This of 
course now at once became the fashionable school, where 
the sons of the magnates might be educated along with their 
future prince. Jesuit influence spread rapidly, both with 
the prince and among the people—so rapidly, in fact, and 
with so much interference in policies of state, that in 1588 
the nobles in the Diet unanimously voted to have them ex- 
pelled from the land, lest through their machinations Tran- 
sylvania be soon brought under the rule of Catholic Austria, 
which was indeed the Jesuit design. They managed to get 
back again more than once, but the feeling against them 
was so strong and so general that they were never allowed 
to stay long enough to gain control of things, as they did 
1See page 165. 


UNITARIANISM TO DAVID’S DEATH 239 


in Poland. It is due to this fact as much as to any other 
that Unitarianism was not overthrown also in Transylvania. 

While the Unitarians had received staggering blows in 
the death of King John, the overthrow of the party of 
Bekes, and the succession of laws which the Diet had passed 
to limit their growth, yet their internal life went on much 
as before. Especially in their thought, which they had not 
caused to set like plaster by adopting a binding creed, they 
kept on advancing. It was this very growth in their 
thought that brought about their next great trouble. Al- 
though they no longer believed that Christ was equal with 
God, they had inherited from their past the habit of praying 
to him. There were some of their leading thinkers, how- 
ever, able scholars like Sommer and Paleologus, rectors of 
the Kolozsvar school, and others, who believed that this 
practice had never been taught in Scripture nor commanded 
by Christ himself, and who therefore held that it ought to 
be given up. This view had already been put forth about 
the time of King John’s death, and had then been discussed 
by the Unitarians, Biandrata included, without meeting se- 
rious objection; and it had evidently spread widely among 
them without arousing much of a stir. To the more ortho- 
dox, however, this seemed like giving up Christianity alto- 
gether and going back to Judaism; and when the Jesuits 
came into the land in 1579, and found David supporting 
this view, this seemed to them the most vulnerable point in 


1The Socinians held that this was the very heart of their religion, 
and felt that giving it up would be a more pernicious error than be- 
lieving in the Trinity. The Racovian Catechism taught that those 
who believe otherwise are not Christians (p. 160); though a distinc- 
tion was drawn by some between adoring the supreme God and _ in- 
voking Christ’s aid as our mediator with him. Budny in Lithuania 
(page 139), taught by Palzologus, opposed this view, and was hence 
expelled from the Church. 


240 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the Unitarian armor, and they therefore began urging 
that David be prosecuted for teaching such blasphemy. It 
is they that were really at the bottom of what followed. 

David, whose mind was always ready for progress, had 
adopted this view by 1572, though for several years he had 
happened to say little or nothing upon it. At this unfor- 
tunate time, however, just as the Catholics were becoming 
aggressive, and the Diet in 1577 had renewed the law 
against further “innovations,” he began to preach boldly. 
At the Unitarian synod at Torda in 1578, with 322 clergy 
present, he had taken occasion to speak against the wor- 
ship of Christ, and infant baptism had also been abolished 
as unscriptural. David went on in public addresses and 
private discussions to further reformation of doctrine; and 
though the Diet the next month uttered yet another warn- — 
ing against “innovations,” he ignored the warning, and at 
the autumn synod continued the doctrinal discussions as 
before. Biandrata at court saw full well what the Jesuits 
were waiting for, and that the prince under their pressure 
was growing impatient; and he realized that there was great 
danger lest all Unitarians be banished from the country. 
He urged David to keep quiet, and when David replied that 
this would be hypocrisy, Biandrata next suggested to him 
that in order to save the whole cause from ruin it might 
be well to have two or three of the ministers who were most 
zealous in spreading this new teaching tried for heresy. It 
might have been a politic move to make, but David indig- 
nantly rejected a proposal so dishonorable. 

Biandrata now tried another tack. He had heard of 
Faustus Socinus and his famous debate at Basel early that 
year on Christ the Savior,’ and he sent for him to come 
and try to bring David around by arguments out of the 


1See page 149. 


UNITARIANISM TO DAVID’S DEATH 241 


Bible. Socinus came, by way of Poland, bearing recom- 
mendations from the Polish churches; and from autumn to 
spring he lodged and boarded at David’s house, at Bian- 
drata’s expense, conducting a running discussion with him 
on the subject of the worship of Christ. Many of the min- 
isters came in and took part in the debate. Socinus warned 
David that such views would lead men back to Moses and 
Judaism; but David remained of the same opinion still. 
Then Biandrata had David’s income from the church cut 
down; whereat David bitterly protested, comparing this 
persecution of himself to Calvin’s persecution of Servetus. 
Biandrata replied in anger that if David did not abandon 
the offensive doctrine he should be accused and tried at 
the next Diet for the crime of innovation. So it was agreed 
between them that the matter be referred to a committee 
of the ministers, who in their turn put it over until a gen- 
eral synod. Biandrata also proposed that all the argu- 
ments on both sides be put in writing and submitted to the 
Polish churches for their judgment. It was agreed that 
this be done, and that meantime David should preserve si- 
lence on the subject. He and Socinus both prepared state- 
ments of their views, which were shown to the prince and 
then sent to Poland. Without waiting for the answer, how- 
ever, David called another synod at Torda, despite Bian- 
drata’s opposition. Upon this Biandrata, thinking David 
incorrigible and defiant, called fifty of the ministers to- 
gether, told them that David’s case was soon to come up 
at the Diet, gave them a statement of David’s views which 
seriously misrepresented him, and covertly suggested to 
them how they had better vote if they did not wish to be 
removed from office and banished. At the same time he 
wrote Socinus to tell David that whereas he had thus far 
defended him with the prince, he should now take side 


242 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


against him. The prince then ordered the Kolozsvar Coun- 
cil to have David removed from his pastorate and kept 
under guard in his own house, and secluded from visitors. 
David now suspected Socinus of treachery and ordered him 
from his house. All this time David was ill; but the next 
day, being Sunday, he roused himself and preached in the 
two churches at Kolozsvar, telling his people of what was 
impending, eloquently defending the Unitarian doctrine, 
and declaring the worship of Christ to be just the same 
as invoking the Virgin Mary or the saints. It was the 
last sermon he ever preached. “Whatever the world may 
say,’ he concluded, “it must some time become clear that 
God is but one.” 

The prince was naturally very angry at this, although 
the Kolozsvar council did their utmost to appease him, and 
so did many of the nobles; but he insisted that David be 
arrested. Socinus, having recovered from an illness, went 
to Poland, where we have already followed his later career.* 
Biandrata’s feeling toward David had now deepened into 
bitter —personal animosity. He had him kept under the 
strictest guard, and would not allow anything done to re- 
lieve David’s physical sufferings, nor permit even his family 
to go to him, except rarely. ‘Though too weak to stand, 
David was at length taken in a wagon to Gyulafehervar 
and brought into court before the prince. The question 
was whether his teaching against the worship of Christ was 
“innovation” or not. Much evidence was brought to show 
that these views, instead of being new, had long been cur- 
rent among the Unitarians, and once assented to by even 
Biandrata himself. After the case had been submitted, 
David and his friends were required to withdraw. <A score 
or more of the Unitarian ministers, remembering Bian- 


1 See Chapter xvii. 


UNITARIANISM TO DAVID’S DEATH 243 


drata’s threat, and also the orthodox ministers, swore that 
they had never shared these views. Only one was bold 
enough to declare that these things had been discussed at 
Nagyvarad without creating any scandal there. The 
nobles, however, declared that they agreed with David; 
while on the other hand the Jesuits last of all pronounced 
his teachings damnable blasphemy. David was again 
brought into court. The complainants asked mercy for 
him, but the orthodox ministers from Hungary demanded 
his life. The prince pronounced him guilty, and sentenced 
him to imprisonment in the castle at Deva. Further ap- 
peals in his behalf were in vain. The judgment of the 
Polish churches had not been waited for, but when it did 
come it was unfavorable to David’s teachings. He himself 
did not long survive, but died in his prison November 15, 
1579. His enemies afterwards circulated terrible legends 
about his last days; but it is probable that he died of the 
illness from which he had long been suffering. 

Francis David deserves to stand along with Servetus as 
one of the two greatest martyrs in Unitarian history. 
He was an untiring student of Scripture, and in his efforts 
to carry the reformation of Christianity through consist- 
ently he never shrank from taking the next step. This 
made him seem to his opponents to be utterly unstable, for 
their ideal was that one’s religious views once formed should 
never be changed; but his changes were simply phases of 
a steady movement in one consistent direction, and he was 
not a man to believe a thing in his heart but keep silent about 
it when in his pulpit. Neither bribes nor threats could 
move him from faithfulness to the truth as he saw it; and 
his example of unswerving fidelity to his faith, even unto 
death, has continued to inspire his followers in Transyl- 
vania during three hundred and fifty years, of which few 


244 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


have been free from some sort of religious persecution. In 
his beliefs and teachings he was far in advance of Socinus, 
and of his own time; and he was the only one of the earlier 
Unitarian leaders in any country who would feel spiritually 
much at home among Unitarians of the twentieth century. 
While this is now his greatest praise, it then brought the 
greatest danger to his cause, and death to himself. 

As for Biandrata’s part in this tragedy, it is not easy 
to be sure whether one is fair and just to him. Was he 
moved to it by envy and jealousy that the reformation 
which he had introduced into the Reformed religion should 
so soon and so fully have passed from his influence under 
that of a man whom he had himself discovered and brought 
forward? Was it a sense of revenge that, when his own 
reputation was under a cloud, and he is said to have been 
shunned by all respectable people, made him wish to humil- 
iate one who had reproved him? Or was it that being in 
the intimacy of a Catholic court he realized that the Uni- 
tarian Church was in imminent danger of destruction unless 
its headlong movement away from the familiar faith and 
practices of all the rest of the Christian world could be 
arrested? All these explanations of his conduct have been 
given, and perhaps all of them are in some measure true. 
Certainly, as the trouble went on, his feeling toward David 
seems to have grown into ever more bitter hatred as David 
seemed to him to grow more stubborn and headstrong. The 
Unitarians of Transylvania have never ceased to hold his 
name in execration. Yet after all has been said, it deserves 
still to be remembered that one of the earliest and most 
persistent pioneers of Unitarianism, who for years imperiled 
his life for it, who did more than perhaps any other one 
person for its early spread in Poland, and was responsible 
for introducing it to those who could best promote it in 


UNITARIANISM TO DAVID’S DEATH 245 


Transylvania, was the Italian physician, Giorgio, Bian- 
drata. 

Though he had gained a temporary victory in securing 
the condemnation of David, and still guided the policy of 
the church for a little while afterwards, Biandrata’s in- 
fluence among the Unitarians from this time on grew stead- 
ily less. While it is not likely that he ever returned to the 
Catholic Church, as is sometimes charged, the rest of his 
life was spent in Jesuit circles at court, and his interest 
in his own church is said to have grown cold. Legend sur- 
rounds the time, place, and circumstances of his death, but 
the truth probably is that he died a natural death in 1588 
at Gyulafehervar. 

Socinus’s part in the transaction also brought much criti- 
cism upon him, and it was believed for a time that he had 
willingly joined with Biandrata in a conspiracy to bring 
about David’s death. But his conduct when carefully ex- 
amined seems to have been entirely correct, as of one who 
tried simply by force of argument to bring David to a dif- 
ferent view. Failing in this, he left Transylvania without 
having any part in David’s trial, or being even aware that 
anything more was intended than to restrain him from 
preaching until a general synod should settle the doctrine 
of the church. 


CHAPTER XXIV 


UNITARIANISM IN TRANSYLVANIA AFTER 
DAVID’S DEATH, 1579-1690: A CENTURY 
OF CALVINIST OPPRESSION 


The imprisonment of David left the Unitarian churches 
without organization or leadership. Biandrata’s interest 
in their cause led him at once to set about organizing them 
on a foundation which should make them safe from further at- 
tacks under the law, and should ensure them an orderly and 
responsible growth. Within a month he called a general sy- 
nod at Kolozsvar, and it was attended by nearly all the clergy. 
In their hearts very many of them sympathized with David 
and shared his views, and they were little inclined to fall in 
with any plans Biandrata might now have in hand; but to 
save the church from the charge of being “deniers of Christ,” 
he got them (by misrepresentation or a trick, it is said) to 
adopt a confession of faith which was supposed to be com- 
piled from books published in the time of John Sigismund. 
It made the adoration of Christ henceforth compulsory in 
public worship, and was designed to be a bar to any further 
changes in the direction in which David had been moving. 
A consistory of twenty-four members was chosen to manage 
church affairs, and a little later twelve deans were elected to 
have supervision of as many separate districts. 

Biandrata also had a candidate for bishop; but the brethren 
were unwilling to vote for him while David still lived, so that 


on Biandrata’s nomination the prince appointed his candi- 
246 | 


UNITARIANISM TO 1690 247 


date both bishop and chief minister of the Kolozsvar church. 
The new bishop, Demetrius Hunyadi, was wisely chosen. 
He had been a protégé of John Sigismund, a friend of 
Stephen Bathori, and rector of the Kolozsvar_ school. 
While conservative in his beliefs, he was highly educated, 
as well as a man of great organizing ability. He soon con- 
vened the consistory to establish rules for the government 
of the churches, and it ordered that infant baptism, which 
had not been observed for some time, should be restored; 
while the ministers were all made subject to the bishop and 
consistory. In the autumn the judgment of the Polish 
churches on the case of David was received, strongly con- 
demning the views of David. All but sixteen or eighteen 
out of 250 ministers subscribed to it, while most of the rest 
at length gave in. All debate on the disputed questions 
was henceforth closed. Bishop Hunyadi lived until 1592, 
and in his time the church became well established in ways 
that were safe and conservative, though they left little room 
for progress. 

In many cases, however, the conformity was only outward. 
Whatever they might have been compelled to adopt, the 
ministers could not so easily change their convictions, and 
many of them continued quietly to believe and preach and 
practice as before. In fact, as soon as Biandrata’s pressure 
was off, no serious attempt was made for several years to en- 
force the severe laws which had been passed against David’s 
teaching; and various high nobles and officials were known 
openly to hold his views. Even a hundred years later there 
were many of the Unitarians who did not practice infant 
baptism; and refusal to adore Christ was widespread for 
nearly sixty years until, as we shall soon see, the subject 
again brought the Unitarians before the Diet. 

David’s views had been very generally accepted among 


248 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the churches in Lower Hungary, and as these were not sub- 
ject to Transylvania but under the Turkish rule, they paid 
no heed to the new regulations. Moreover, many of the 
best ministers in the church now left Transylvania and went 
to Hungary that they might enjoy greater religious free- 
dom. There was an angry interchange of letters, the Hun- 
garians sharply upbraiding the Transylvanians for their 
desertion of David. The Hungarian churches now with- 
drew by themselves and chose a bishop of their own, and 
henceforth, in spite of efforts to win them back, they had 
little to do with the brethren in Transylvania, and little 
sympathy with them. At the same time, many of the nobles, 
setting political prospects before religious convictions, 
abandoned the Unitarian Church and professed the Calvin- 
ist or the Catholic faith. Transylvania was on the way to 
become Catholic again; and the next prince, the young Sigis- 
mund Bathori, who had been educated by the Jesuits, was 
the willing tool of their policy to turn the country over to 
Catholic Austria. He was persuaded to put many of the 
Protestant magnates to death on a false charge of treason, 
and he left his land for some years like a football to be 
fought over between Austria and Turkey, and to be 
wounded, burned, and pillaged by each in turn. For eight- 
een years from his accession in 1588 there was no peace 
or security in Transylvania. All this aggravated the mis- 
fortunes of the Unitarians. 

Prince Sigismund surrendered his government to the Em- 
peror Rudolf in 1595 and retired from the country. The 
Emperor then sent his bloody General Basta to subdue 
Transylvania and exterminate Protestantism. The Cath- 
olic bishop recommended that the Unitarian churches be 
taken away and their ministers banished, and in many cases 
this was done. The Jesuits returned and were given the 


UNITARIANISM TO 1690 249 


chief Unitarian church at Kolozsvar in 1603. General 
Barbiano, a Roman monk turned soldier, declared that they 
would kill every grown person in Hungary and Transyl- 
vania who refused to join the Catholic Church. Basta 
treated the Protestants so cruelly that for generations they 
used his name to frighten their children. He hung min- 
isters up to smother in smoke from piles of their own 
burning books, or flayed them alive. His soldiers pillaged 
_the houses of the nobles, and ravished their wives and 
daughters. Terrible famine followed. For a few months, 
while their enemies fell out with one another, there was a 
successful uprising of the Transylvanians under the leader- 
ship of a brave Szekler named Moses Szekely, who was a 
Unitarian.t He proved a great general, and won most of 
the country back, took Kolozsvar, expelled the Jesuits, and 
restored their church to the Unitarians. It looked for a 
time as if the Unitarians were again to have a ruler of their 
own faith; for after winning sweeping victories Szekely was 
elected prince at Gyulafehervar in 1603. He was about 
to be recognized by the Emperor when the enemy settled 
their quarrels and united against him, and a few weeks 
later he was defeated and killed in a night battle near 
Brasso (Kronstadt), and most of the nobility of the land 
were captured or fell with him. Basta returned, more 
cruel than ever. Most of the ministers fled the country, 
and the Unitarian bishop saved his life by hiding in an 
iron mine. The church at Kolzsvar was again given to the 
Jesuits, and for three years the Unitarians there had to 
worship secretly in a private house. 

At length the Protestants of Hungary and Transylvania 
rallied under the heroic leader Stephen Bocskai, a Cal- 
vinist of Nagyvarad, who was elected prince in 1605. 


1 He was leader of the Szekler party who had supported Bekes. 


250 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Basta was utterly defeated, and the emperor sought peace. 
The liberties of both Protestants and Catholics were pro- 
claimed, and Bocskai again expelled the Jesuits and re- 
stored to the Unitarians their churches and schools. The 
next year he died of poison. Of course in this troubled 
period the Unitarians could not hope to increase; but 
wasted as they were by war and persecution, it was wonder- 
ful how steadfastly they stuck to their faith under the 
leadership of their fearless and faithful bishops. 

With Bocskai began a rule of Transylvania which, for 
nearly a century, remained in the hands of Calvinists, and 
the Reformed Church thus held the lead until 1690. They 
did not violently oppress the Unitarians, and they pre- 
tended to observe the laws of religious freedom; but they 
were as unfriendly as ever to the Unitarian faith and 
church, and hampered its growth whenever possible. Thus 
they insisted in 1605 that the Calvinist minority should be 
given equal rights with the large Unitarian majority at 
Kolozsvar. Soon afterwards it was ordered that Calvinis- 
tic preaching should be had there, where until now there 
had been only Unitarian churches; and then a church and 
school were set aside for the Reformed, and then another 
and another. In 1615 it was enacted that a church hav- 
ing mixed membership should be wholly controlled by those 
of the majority faith; and in general the government in 
every way used its power to favor the Calvinist cause as 
much as the law allowed. : 

From 1613 to 1629 Prince Gabriel Bethlen ruled. He 
was perhaps the greatest of Transylvania’s native rulers, a 
wise and firm statesman; also a zealous Calvinist, deeply 
interested in religion, and determined in every lawful way 
to promote his own form of it. Yet the Unitarians, in spite 
of all they had suffered, were still very strong, and could 


UNITARIANISM TO 1690 251 


have kept at least even, had it not been for one thing which 
now arose to trouble them. When religious bigotry wishes 
to pursue a course of persecution, any pretext, however 
slight, will serve the purpose for entering on it. Bethlen 
found his pretext in the Sabbatarianism of some of the 
Unitarians. To understand this matter we must go back 
a little. After the death of David, Unitarianism showed 
two distinct tendencies. The conservatives of course fol- 
lowed the beliefs and observed the practices established 
by Biandrata and Bishop Hunyadi in 1579; but there were 
a great many who held with David, even though they dared 
not confess it, and who continued to go on further in the 
direction in which David had seemed to be setting out. Re- 
acting against the new requirements, they took to study- 
ing their Bibles more than ever, and especially the Old Tes- 
tament, in which they found various neglected commands 
which they now felt bound to keep. Hence very few years 
after David’s death it was charged that at Kolozsvar many 
had given up having their infants baptized, were abstain- 
ing from eating pork or blood or things strangled, and in 
various other ways resembled the Jews, especially as they 
celebrated Jewish festivals and observed the Sabbath. Thus 
they came to be called Judaizers, or Sabbatarians. They 
spread most of all in Szeklerland, among the rural popu- 
lation; but they were inoffensive, held no open meetings, 
and for some time were generally tolerated. Their founder 
was one Andrew Eossi, who had come to his beliefs about 
1588 while reading his Bible for consolation after the death 
of his three sons. 

In the time of Sigismund Bathori, Sabbatarianism was 
coming to be regarded as practically a new religious sect, 
and it was proposed to punish it severely as an “‘innova- 
tion”; but war soon put a stop to the persecutions that 


252 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


were begun. Although one or two more Diets passed laws 
against them, the laws were not enforced; but Bethlen dis- 
covered here a chance, by attacking the Sabbatarians, to 
weaken the Unitarian Church, to which the most of them 
belonged, and in 1615 he began a severe persecution of them 
as blasphemers. Three years later he had a general synod 
of the Unitarian churches called, and sent the Reformed 
Bishop Dajka to preside over it as his personal representa- 
tive, and had the Sabbatarians summoned to attend it. To 
escape prosecution many of them at once went over to the 
Reformed Church; the rest were then excluded from their 
membership in the Unitarian Church and turned over to the 
Reformed ministers to be converted back to Christianity. 
Accompanied by 300 soldiers, Bishop Dajka next went 
through two whole counties where the Sabbatarians were 
most numerous, and under pretense of rooting them out he 
took the churches away from the Unitarians right and 
left, wherever there was the least suspicion of Sabbatarian- 
ism, and turned their ministers out of their pulpits and 
placed them under arrest. The Diet thought this was 
going too far, and interfered. In 1622, however, Bishop 
Dajka attained the same end in another way. As the law 
then stood, even the Unitarian churches in Szeklerland were 
to be visited and supervised by the Reformed bishop rather 
than by the Unitarian. He converted a well-known Uni- 
tarian minister to the Reformed faith, though the fact was 
kept a secret, and took him with him as he visited the Uni- 
tarian churches. He would ask the members if they pro- 
fessed the same faith as this pastor Siko, to which they 
answered yes. Thereupon he reported that in his presence 
all these churches had abjured Unitarianism and professed 
the Reformed faith; their Unitarian ministers were turned 
1 See page 238, 


UNITARIANISM TO 1690 258 


out, and Reformed ministers were settled in place of them. 
Thus by a contemptible deception the Unitarians were 
deprived of sixty-two churches at once, and no attempt was 
ever made to right the wrong. 

Sabbatarianism was now in a way to die out (for the 
exclusion of its followers from the church meant their dis- 
qualification from holding public office, and this was regarded 
as a very great loss), had it not been revived in a singular 
way. A man named Simon Pecsi had in earlier life been 
teacher of the three sons of the Eéssi above mentioned, and 
after their death Pecsi had been adopted by him, and at 
length had inherited his large fortune. He then went 
abroad for extensive travel and study, and returning en- 
tered upon public life, became secretary to Bocskai, and at 
length chancellor under Bethlen. Falling under suspicion 
of disloyalty, he was imprisoned for nine years, during 
which he gave himself to much thought upon religious sub- 
jects. The result was that he came out of prison a zealous 
Sabbatarian, and by his able published writings and his 
wide personal influence soon spread the movement widely 
among all classes; while the Unitarian bishop, being a Pole, 
knew too little Hungarian to keep track of what was going 
on in his churches. Bethlen had now been succeeded by 
George Rakoczy I, another zealous Calvinist, who had the 
less love for Unitarians since they had supported his rival 
for the crown, one of their own number.! After settling 
his political problems, therefore, he began a new persecution 
of the Sabbatarian Unitarians, whom he required to return 
to one of the other “‘received” religions on pain of death 
and confiscation of property. Pecsi himself was again im- 


1It was this Rackoczy who having intercepted a Unitarian letter 
addressed to one of the brethren in Transylvania in 1638 warned the 
Dutch to take measures to prevent the Socinians just driven out of 
Rakow from settling in Holland as was proposed. See page 171 n. 


254 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


prisoned, and forfeited nearly all his property, though when 
at length released he is said to have secured himself against 
further trouble by joining the Reformed Church. 

One more line of attack remained to be tried against the 
Unitarians: as to whether they were observing the law 
about the worship of Christ, which had been forced upon 
them at the time of David’s trial. It was well known that 
many of the ministers had accepted the new creed at that 
time simply because they must, or else run the risk of being 
imprisoned or perhaps put to death as innovators; while 
many of the nobles had made no secret at David’s trial that 
they favored his views. The matter was allowed to drift 
at the time, since for a generation the country was too 
much upset by political disturbances to pay much atten- 
tion to the details of religion. They continued in their 
heresy. Rakoczy, however, began in 1635 to take more 
vigorous measures, and threatened, unless they changed, to 
prosecute them before the Diet. As they still persisted, a 
special Diet was called at Dees in 1638 to take up the mat- 
ter. Again, as before, many became alarmed lest they lose 
their political rights, and for safety went over to the Re- 
formed Church. In the end the parties reached an agree- 
ment known as the Settlement of Dees (Complanatio Dees- 
iana),' which was accepted by the prince, the Diet, and 
all others concerned. This gave the Unitarian belief a new 
and clearer statement, and required a stricter adherence to 
the worship of Christ (though not as God), and to the 
use of the sacraments; while any one found innovating 
again was to be beheaded and to have his estates confiscated. 

1In this document is the first official use of the word Unitarian as the 


name of the church, in the forms Unitaria recepta religto, and 
Unitaria Magyar ecclesia, 


UNITARIANISM TO 1690 255 


All this was then duly ratified in the church synod, a new 
catechism was based upon it, and from that time on the 
subject gave no further trouble. 

The Diet at Dees took other actions affecting the Uni- 
tarians. It forbade the publishing of Unitarian books 
without license from the prince. Further action was also 
taken against the Sabbatarians, of whom some were sen- 
tenced to death, many others were imprisoned, and one was 
stoned to death by a street mob as a blasphemer, and his 
wife pilloried in the market-place and banished; while yet 
others had to submit to public humiliation, and all who 
would not recant had their property confiscated. From 
this time on, the Sabbatarians became negligible, though 
a few of them still remain to this day, now professed Jews 
in faith and customs. 

Besides the misfortunes of which we have spoken, the Uni- 
tarians lost many churches in Szeklerland through an in- 
vasion of the Tatars in 1622, and in the same year many 
of their members at Kolozsvar died of the plague; while 
yet others in this troubled period (1616-1632) became de- 
moralized, as we have noted,' because their Bishop Radecki, 
being a Pole, could not speak Hungarian, and thus could 
not give his churches the oversight they required. Hence 
the sixty years after David’s death were a time during which 
Unitarianism in Transylvania steadily lost ground. Those 
that survived did so through their heroic faithfulness, and 
thus developed qualities they were greatly to need under 
Catholic persecutions in the next century. Meantime they 
were first to enjoy a half-century of comparative quiet, 
during which they might regain lost ground, and again de- 
velop a healthy church life. 

1 See page 253. 


256 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


During the rest of the seventeenth century the Unitarians 
of Transylvania saw better days, and held their own fairly 
well, Their ministers and teachers were well educated in 
their college at Kolozsvar, and the more promising were 
sent for further education to Luclavice ! in Poland, to Ger- 
many, or to Leiden and Amsterdam in Holland where they 
were kindly received by the Remonstrants. From now on 
they worked unweariedly to repair their losses and build 
up their church. They never long escaped injury from 
war, however. Prince George Rakoczy II was, as we have 
seen,” lured into invading Poland in 1657, and of his army 
of 50,000 only 3,000 returned. The flower of Transyl- 
vanian nobility perished or were taken into captivity, 
among them of course large numbers of Unitarians; and 
not long afterwards, while Austria invaded the country on 
the one side, Turks and Tatars came with fire and sword 
on the other, carrying many into slavery, and leaving 
burned homes and churches behind them; and in the wake 
of all this came the plague ravaging the whole land. For 
two years the church was unable even to elect a bishop, no 
synods were held, and the college at Kolozsvar was reduced 
to but nine students. 

It was just at this period that the miserable company 
of Polish exiles arrived,? to find their Kolozsvar brethren 
kind and hospitable though impoverished; for friendly rela- 
tions had long been kept up between the Unitarians of both 
countries, scholars and teachers had gone back and forth, 
and Poland had furnished several ministers for the Saxon 
Unitarian church at Kolozsvar, and even one bishop. ‘The 
new Prince Michael Apaffi I arranged for their permanent 

1 See page 171. 


2See page 174. 
3 See page 182. 


UNITARIANISM TO 1690 257 


settlement at a time when hardly another country in Europe 
was ready to make them welcome. Later on they were 
joined by other exiles, from Poland or Prussia; and while 
all were poor, and long afterwards were still obliged to ask 
aid from their more fortunate brethren elsewhere, on the 
whole they brought strength to the Unitarian cause. 

The number of churches had now fallen to not much over 
200—hardly half of what they had been in David’s time; 
but under Bishop Koncz, 1663-1684, recovery again began, 
and churches were rebuilt or repaired. In one instance 
the Unitarians took from the Calvinists by force a church 
which had formerly been their own, and the prince approved 
their action. Koncz especially fostered a school by each 
village church, and soon brought these to a high state of 
excellence; the churches flourished again, and good disci- 
pline was maintained. 

In Lower Hungary for more than fifty years after David’s 
death, Unitarian churches, being under the protection of 
Turkish rule, flourished wonderfully in seven counties, a 
country as large as Transylvania itself. At Pecs in 1682 
the Catholics were extinct, and nearly every citizen was a 
Unitarian; and so it was in three whole counties west of 
the Danube. Our records of these churches, however, are 
meager. After having had but one bishop of their own, 
they seem to have drawn. closer to the Transylvanian 
brethren again, and not to have appointed another. Many 
of their ministers came from Transylvania, and they sent 
many of their sons to Kolozsvar to college. 'Toward the 
end of the seventeenth century they commenced surely 
to decline. The Jesuits had begun to come in and win 
the field back again. Wars between Austria and Turkey 
ravaged the country. In 1687 the Turks were driven from 
the land, and it now came back under Catholic rule. When 


258 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the Emperor took Pecs from the Turks he therefore gave the 
Unitarian church to the Catholics, and banished its min- 
isters. The Calvinists were still tolerated in Hungary, and 
where they were numerous they, too, severely persecuted the 
Unitarians. Under this irresistible double oppression, and 
with no legal protection whatever, they had to yield. By 
1710 the last of the churches in Hungary had been up- 
rooted; their ministers were banished, and their members 
died off or joined the other churches. Ten years later but 
few were left, and before the middle of the century all had 
become Calvinist or Catholic, or else had left the country. 
Not until late in the nineteenth century was Unitarianism 
again planted in this region. 


CHAPTER XXV 


UNITARIANISM IN TRANSYLVANIA UNDER 
AUSTRIAN RULE, 1690-1867: A CENTURY 
AND A QUARTER OF CATHOLIC 
OPPRESSION 


Ever since 1526 the Turks had occupied a large part 
of Hungary, and had held a sort of political guardianship 
over Transylvania; but in 1690, they were expelled from 
the land for good, at the end of a war in which the 
Unitarians bore a prominent part. Transylvania, with 
much enthusiasm at being again united in government with 
a kindred people, was joined to Austria, and Leopold I, 
King of Hungary and Emperor, was elected its prince. 
Now throughout its history Austria has been more closely 
under the influence of the Catholic Church than perhaps any 
other European country unless it be Spain. The century of 
intermittent oppression by Calvinists of which we have spo- 
ken in the last chapter was therefore now to be followed by a 
century of steady and severe Catholic persecution which was 
far worse. Soon after his accession Leopold issued in 1691 
a celebrated document (the Diploma Leopoldinum) which 
was regarded as the Magna Charta of Transylvania. It 
was designed to secure to the Transylvanians under the 
new government all the rights they had enjoyed under the 
old; and in particular it promised that the existing rights 
of the four received religions should be continued without 


injury to churches, schools, or parishes, that all church 
259 


260 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


property should remain in possession of its present holders, 
and that the members of the several churches should have 
a fair share of the public offices and honors which they so 
highly prized. 

The ink was hardly dry on Leopold’s signature before 
plans began for breaking the promises he had so solemnly 
and publicly made. Leopold had been educated for the 
priesthood and was designed for a bishop, when his elder 
brother died and the crown fell to him at the age of seven- 
teen. He was largely under the influence of the Jesuits, 
and his long reign was their golden age in Hungary as it 
was the dark age of the Protestants. Before becoming 
Prince of Transylvania he had been unspeakably cruel to 
the Protestants of Hungary. The Jesuits, maintaining 
that one was not bound to keep a promise made to heretics, 
soon induced Leopold to break his oath to preserve the re- 
ligious liberties of his Protestant subjects. The Catho- 
lics therefore now began making demands upon the Protes- 
tants, and each demand yielded to only led to more. We 
need speak only of the oppressions affecting the Unitarians. 
In 1693 they were compelled to give up to the Catholics 
the school at Kolozsvar which John Sigismund had given 
them in 1566. Next the Catholics demanded the great 
church in the square which the Unitarians had held since 
David’s time, and had lately repaired at large expense; but 
the demand was refused. In 1697 came a great fire which 
destroyed this church and another, as well as the school 
they had only just built to take the place of that seized 
by the Catholics, and several other buildings belong- 
ing to the church. Bishop Almasi sent one of the profes- 
sors in the Unitarian school to Holland to solicit aid from 
the Remonstrants and Collegiants, and received 9,000 


UNITARIANISM UNDER AUSTRIAN RULE 261 


thalers (nearly $7,000) in response to his appeal,! and 
with contributions from the whole membership the build- 
ings were restored; though, as we shall soon see, they were 
not to be kept for long. The other three religions now 
each demanded a church and a school with equal rights at 
Kolozsvar, thus crowding the Unitarians further out of 
the seat they had held for long over a century. In fact, 
the only ray of light in this dark reign was that in 1693 the 
right of visiting the churches in the Szekler counties * 
was restored to the Unitarian bishop, and that in 1696 the 
Unitarians were permitted to set up a new press at Kolozs- 
var, though they soon had to hide away even this. 

Under the reign of Charles VI (1711-1740) oppression 
was still the rule. He took the oath as usual, and under 
Jesuit advice broke it as usual. Im defiance of the law 
of the land he brought back the Catholic bishop and the 
Jesuits, and his agents began despoiling Unitarians and 
driving them from their churches by force in all parts of 
the land. In 1714 he sent General Steinville to Transy!l- 
vania as governor, who began carrying on the oppression in 
true military fashion. He billeted his soldiers in the homes of 
the prominent Unitarians. In 1716 he at length took away 
from them by military force the great church at Kolozsvar 
which the Catholics had been coveting for over twenty years, 
and the Unitarians had occupied for a century and a half; 
and along with this the minister’s house, school, professors’ 
houses, endowment property, and press, all under a decree 
approved by the same emperor who had pledged his sacred 
word to secure them in all the rights they had possessed. 
The value of the property thus taken from the Unitarians 


1 See page 199. 
2 See page 238. 


262 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


at Kolozsvar was estimated at not less than 200,000 crowns. 
The students of the school were scattered, and for a time 
no worship was allowed even in private houses. In 1721 
yet another church at Kolozsvar was taken away, with its 
endowment funds; then that at Torda, then here and there 
all over the country churches were taken from the Unita- 
rians on any pretext or none and given to the Catholics, even 
when the latter had but two or three members in a place. 
It was forbidden to build new churches to replace the old 
without express imperial permission, which of course could 
never be obtained. Persecutions like those of the early 
Christians were inflicted far and wide. Unitarians were 
gradually excluded from public offices, even the lowest, and 
were refused the political equality which was theirs by law. 
Even then, though many fell away, and many congrega- 
tions were scattered or broken up before the end of the 
century, most did not lose hope even under the severest per- 
secutions, but only redoubled their devotions and sacrifices. 

Charles was succeeded by his daughter, Maria Theresia, 
whose long reign (1740-1780) continued the same policy 
toward Protestants which her father had practiced, but car- 
ried it yet further. She stands in history as one of the 
ablest and best rulers that Austria ever had; and she 
seemed to herself to be an advanced religious reformer, for 
she fell out with the Jesuits and expelled them in 1773. 
She was, however, a devoted and zealous Catholic; and al- 
though at her accession she had assured the Transylva- 
nians that she would preserve all their ancient rights, privi- 
leges and liberties, heresy was to her mind an unpardon- 
able sin which had no just claim to toleration. Hence she 
was little inclined to let mere laws of the land, though re- 
peatedly confirmed by her predecessors, or promises made 
by them or herself, stand in the way, if by ignoring them 


UNITARIANISM UNDER AUSTRIAN RULE = 268 


she could suppress or destroy in any part of her realm 
what she of course deemed the most damnable heresy. Her 
hand therefore fell heavily even upon the Saxon Lutherans 
of her own race, but most heavily of all upon the Unita- 
rians. There is little to tell of what the Unitarians did 
during her reign, for they were reduced to their lowest ebb; 
but there is much to tell of what they suffered, for it is 
a melancholy story of forty years during which every con- 
ceivable means was used to destroy their church. The 
queen would use the arts of persuasion, and the subtle 
bribery of promises of favors and offices, when they would 
work; and when they would not, she resorted to various 
means of force. Thus by promising them high offices she 
got many wealthy nobles to change their religion. When 
a promising Unitarian youth went up to Vienna, she made 
him her god-son, and gave him rich presents, to induce him 
to turn Catholic. On the other hand she would give no 
high office to a Protestant, and hardly any office at all to 
a Unitarian; she forbade the election of Unitarian magis- 
trates in all but two towns; she refused to let Unitarian 
books be printed, so that whatever books the ministers or 
professors wrote had to be circulated in manuscript copies ; 
and during her whole reign only two Unitarian books were 
published. <A carefully drawn plan for the systematic op- 
pression of Unitarianism was adopted in 1744, which in- 
cluded a large fund for converting Unitarian boys and girls 
at Kolozsvar. Unitarians who sought a university educa- 
tion had long been going to the Protestant universities of 
Holland, Germany, and Switzerland, where funds had been 
established for their assistance; but in order that they 
might be forced to attend the Catholic university at Vienna, 
they were now forbidden to study abroad without special 
permission. Unitarians were forbidden to carry on public 


264 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


religious discussions, or to make converts from other 
churches; their pastors were not allowed to visit the sick or 
administer baptism except among their own members, and 
no member of another church might marry a Unitarian. 

The persecution did not stop at these acts of merely nega- 
tive oppression. Children were taken away from their par- 
ents by force to be educated as Catholics; Unitarian schools 
were closed, and their scholars were then forbidden to go to 
any other school but a Catholic. An old law was revived 
which gave possession of the church in a community to the 
body having a majority of the population; and by coloniz- 
ing for the purpose she secured Catholic majorities enough 
to claim the churches in many places. Various churches, 
schools, and parsonages were taken away by force, and it 
was still forbidden to repair old churches or build new ones. 
The support of the churches by tithes was cut off. At 
Szent Rontas, where the Unitarians some ten years before 
had assisted in the building of a pretty Catholic church, the 
Catholics turned about and seized the Unitarian church, 
school house, and cemetery, attacking in force while the 
Unitarians were at morning worship, and driving the pastor 
and the teacher from town. The Unitarians did not meekly 
submit to this outrage, but a month later recovered their 
property by force; whereupon the queen ordered it taken 
from them again and held until judicial investigation could 
be had and she should give a decision. It can easily be an- 
ticipated what decision she gave: after twelve years the case 
was at last decided in favor of the Catholics, and the name 
of the village was ordered changed to Holy Trinity. 

There were cases of the finest heroism, as when at Bagyon 
a Catholic mob attempted to seize the Unitarian church 
while the men of the village were away; but the enraged 
Szekler women turned out and defended the building them- 


UNITARIANISM UNDER AUSTRIAN RULE = 265 


selves, the younger fighting desperately outside the church, 
while the older within prayed for their success. In another 
village, when the Catholics raised a mob to attack the 
church, the Unitarians defended themselves and scattered 
the mob. For doing this they were arrested and ordered 
flogged, and as a further punishment they were ordered to 
build the Catholics a handsome church. At Brasso the 
Jesuits attacked the Unitarians during the celebration of 
the Lord’s Supper, drove away the pastor, and spilt the 
bread and wine. So it went on all over the land during 
forty long years. The victims repeatedly appealed to the 
toleration decree of 1557, and to the guarantees in the 
Diploma of Leopold, so often confirmed since; but their 
complaints were uniformly ignored. 

All these things wofully reduced the number and strength 
of the Unitarian churches, as it was meant that they should. 
Of the 425 churches and thirteen higher schools and colleges 
in Transylvania late in the sixteenth century, two hundred 
years of persecution had left fewer than 125, all of these of 
course far weaker than before, with a total membership of 
but 50,000, and only one school and college. Yet even now 
their spirit was not crushed. A young Unitarian officer, 
upon being dismissed from his office on account of his reli- 
gion, wrote to his father, “I will beg before I will give up 
my religion.”” Such noble families as still remained were 
most generous to their church. The fewer they became, the 
more they comforted and helped one another. Their per- 
sistence in hanging together, and their willingness to sacri- 
fice for their faith, became proverbial. The result was that 
persecutions which had been intended to destroy them not 
only failed of their purpose, but left them instead a united 
band of heroes; and this quality has persisted to this day. 

To guide and inspire them in this dark period, God raised 


266 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


up a great man, their greatest bishop after David, Michael 
Szent Abrahami, whom they love to call “the eye, heart, and 
tongue of the Unitarians” of this period, since he watched 
over them as their bishop, fathered them as their pastor, 
and taught them as the rector of their college. After an 
ample education at home and abroad, and a brief ministry, 
he began to teach in the college at Kolozsvar just before the 
Unitarians were robbed of it by the Catholics. After a 
time he opened the college in new quarters, now for the third 
time in its broken history, and before long became its rector. 
In 1737 he became bishop, and served thus for over twenty | 
years. By his great energy and wisdom he saved the Uni- 
tarian Church from shipwreck, and recreated it. He was 
a man of distinguished ability as scholar, teacher, theolo- 
gian, preacher, and administrator. He laid the foundation 
of the endowment funds of the Church, and gave it a much 
better organization than before. He reformed the church 
schools and, what was of greatest importance, he reduced its 
theology to a system. His Substance of all Theology ac- 
cording to the Unitarians, a work composed for his classes 
in theology, and widely circulated in manuscript for thirty 
years or more until its publication was allowed in 1787, is 
a work which did for the Unitarians of Transylvania what 
the Racovian Catechism did for the Socinians of Poland.* 
It is very conservative, is founded entirely on proof-texts of 
Scripture, teaches the worship of Christ and the eternal pun- 
ishment of the wicked, and in various other details would 
seem to us now quite orthodox. It was evidently much 
influenced by Servetus, and by the editions of the Raco- 
vian Catechism published after the original Socinianism had 
become modified in Holland; but it has no Anabaptist tend- 
encies. It lays much stress on the practical conduct of 
1 See pages 159-162. 


UNITARIANISM UNDER AUSTRIAN RULE — 267 


Christian life, and must have had great effect in shaping the 
Christian character of the Unitarians in Transylvania. It 
is written in the finest spirit, is not at all controversial, and 
hence was well suited to overcome or soften down the enmity 
of the other churches; and in western Europe its publica- 
tion aroused fresh interest in Unitarians and their teachings, 
and increased respect for them. 

With the reign of Emperor Joseph II (1780-1790) 
better days began to dawn upon the Unitarians of Transyl- 
vania. Long before his mother’s death he had revealed a 
much broader spirit than hers, and now he began to carry 
out a more tolerant policy. When on a visit to Transyl- 
vania as prince, he had received complaints from the Uni- 
tarians as to the injustice they had to suffer, and had prom- 
ised to do for them what he could. So long as the queen 
lived he could do nothing; but when he came to the throne he 
redeemed his promise. Though he was full of reforming 
ideas, his rule is commonly called a political failure; but it 
_is rendered glorious by the fact that he issued in 1780 an 
Edict of Toleration of the four religions, restoring and 
guaranteeing their ancient rights. He forbade further sei- 
zure of churches; and although he did not restore those that 
had been taken away, he offered indemnity for them, ordered 
5,000 florins repaid to the Kolozsvar Unitarians for the 
loss of their church, did various other things for their re- 
lief, and allowed them to print Szent Abrahami’s book just 
now mentioned. His brother Leopold II (1790-1792) was 
also wise and enlightened, and preserved the liberties that 
Joseph had granted, allowing Unitarians again to hold office 
and have equal rights. 

Under the long reign of Francis I (1792-1835), the 
same liberal policy was continued. The edicts of tolera- 
tion were ratified by the Diet and made a part of public law; 


268 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the four religions were again declared equal before the law, 
seizure of church property was forbidden forever, and free- 
dom of the press was restored without censor. Unitarians 
were given a fair share of public offices, some of them high 
ones, and Francis came to be known as “Restorer of the 
rights of Unitarians.” Thus protected by free and just 
Jaws, their weakened churches began at length to recover . 
strength, and many new “churches were now built in towns 
or villages. At Kolozsvar, where they had long had to 
worship in a common dwelling, they now built a large and 
fine church, college, and parish buildings. With revived 
strength came renewed growth and the planting of new 
churches, and lost ground began step by step to be regained. 

In this period a great impulse was given to the Unitarian 
cause by a noble bequest from one of its followers. Laszlo 
Zsuki was the last surviving member of one of the oldest and 
most prominent families in Transylvania, and the heir to 
large estates. He had been educated at the Unitarian col- 
lege, and felt that he owed much to it. He therefore deter- 
mined to leave all his property for Unitarian causes, and to 
that end remained unmarried. After spending his lifetime 
in trying to improve the agricultural condition of his coun- 
try, and being generous to his college, and rebuilding va- 
rious churches, he left at his death in 1792 nearly 80,000 
florins (about $40,000). This generous legacy helped to 
meet the most urgent needs of the poor churches and the 
college. A new college building was erected, professors’ 
salaries were raised, and the needs of poor students and 
poor ministers and their widows were provided for. This 
good example was soon followed by others, and in 1837 the 
greatest of all their bequests was received. Paul Augus- 
tinovics was descended from the Polish exiles who came to 
Transylvania in 1660, and was the son of a poor minister 


UNITARIANISM UNDER AUSTRIAN RULE = 269 


who had died and left him and his mother dependent upon 
the charity of the church. They were aided from the Zsuki 
fund, which enabled him to get his college education at Ko- 
lozsvar, and assisted him in getting started in his profession 
of the law. He showed his gratitude in a munificent man- 
ner. After having spent many years in high public office, 
he also died unmarried, leaving to the church a bequest of 
100,000 florins (about $50,000), nearly his entire fortune, 
which has furnished its largest single endowment down to 
this day. 

In 1821 something of pathetic interest occurred, when 
this little, persecuted, struggling, but heroically faithful 
group of churches made the thrilling discovery that beside 
themselves there were other Unitarians in the world, who 
were free, prosperous, and rapidly growing in strength. 
Ever since the exiles from Poland had gradually melted 
away over Europe, until at length the Transylvanian 
churches no longer heard from them, the Transylvanian 
brethren had generally supposed themselves the only Uni- 
tarians left in the world. For Transylvania was remote 
from western Europe, it was before the age of railroads, and 
there was only the rarest connection with England or Amer- 
ica. It is true that one of the Unitarians (later to become 
Bishop Szent Ivanyi), while pursuing his studies in Holland, 
visited England not long after 1660; but if he met any lb- 
eral Christians there, they were not yet known as Unitari- 
ans, and they had as yet no organized movement. From 
time to time English travelers also had brought home reports 
of the interesting Unitarian Church in Transylvania; but 
their accounts had fallen on heedless ears, for English Uni- 
tarianism had no organization; and although some of the 
Transylvanians had for a generation known in a dim way of 
a similar movement in England, the knowledge had made no 


270 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


real impression. It was not until 1821, after the Unitarian 
Fund had for some years been organized in London, that its 
Secretary, hoping to discover and interest liberal Christians 
on the Continent, sent abroad for circulation a little Latin 
tract entitled The Unitarians in England: their Faith, His- 
tory, and Present Condition briefly set forth. It found its 
way to Transylvania and into the hands of the Unitarians 
there, among whom it aroused the greatest interest. It was 
hike receiving powerful reénforcements at the end of a long 
and exhausting fight. An answer was sent in due time and 
communications have been kept up between the Unitarians of 
the two countries ever since. The Transylvanian brethren 
began to visit England, where they were most gladly re- 
ceived; a few years later two of them went to America, 
where they reported a yet more flourishing body as then 
sweeping all before it in eastern Massachusetts. It was 
a great tonic to the weary strugglers, and a prophecy that 
the cause they had fought for so long was going to win 
at last. In more recent years visits of western Unitarians 
to their brethren in Transylvania have been more frequent ; 
and since 1860 their most promising candidates for the 
ministry have gone to England to finish their education. 
The mother church of Unitarianism has been aided in 
distress by its more fortunate kindred in England and Amer- 
ica, who have strengthened its churches and colleges by 
generous gifts, while the works of English and American 
writers have been published in Hungarian. 

Under the happier conditions now enjoyed after two full 
centuries of almost incessant struggles against oppression 
and cruelty, it might have been hoped that the Unitarians 
had entered upon a period of enduring peace. For nearly 
two generations, indeed, they had little that was serious 
to disturb them, and were steadily regaining their strength 


UNITARIANISM UNDER AUSTRIAN RULE 271 


and extending their influence. It was the longest quiet pe- 
riod that this martyr church has ever enjoyed. In 1848, 
however, came the revolution by which Hungary strove to 
free itself from the long and heavy oppression of Austria. 
Hungary declared its independence, and in its new Constitu- 
tion recognized the Unitarian religion as legal throughout 
the whole kingdom (instead of merely in Transylvania, as 
before), and granted equal and perfect freedom to the several 
religions. But the revolution failed. Russia came to the 
aid of Austria; and Transylvania, as so often before, was 
again a battleground. The Wallacks (Rumanians) dwell- 
ing there, long denied relief from the oppression they had 
themselves suffered for centuries, now seized the occasion 
to rise against their Hungarian masters, against whom they 
committed the most fiendish atrocities, butchering hundreds 
of families in cold blood, killing old men, women, and chil- 
dren without distinction, and sacking and burning whole 
villages. The worst of these things were done where the 
Unitarians happened to be the most numerous, among the 
villages of Szeklerland. 

When the revolution had been put down, Austria deter- 
mined to crush the national spirit of Hungary, and realized 
that the center of this was in the Protestant churches. She 
therefore put the religious affairs of the country under 
the military administration of General Haynau, notorious 
for his cruelty. He abolished all the rights of Protestants, 
forbade their assemblies, dismissed their church officers, and 
placed the religious arrangements of the churches in every 
detail in charge of Catholic overseers. This policy did not 
succeed, and after two or three years the independence of 
the churches was restored; but attempts were still made 
to break them down in other ways. The Unitarian Bishop 
Szekely, with a salary of but $260 a year, was offered 


242 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


wealth, honors, and high office if he would enter the service 
of the Catholics; but of course he refused. When he had 
gone to his reward soon afterward, it was nine years before 
the Unitarians, in spite of repeated protests, were per- 
mitted to elect a new bishop in his place. 

In 1857 the Austrian government made one final attempt 
to stop Protestantism at its source. Under the pretense 
of raising the standard of education, it attempted to de- 
stroy the Protestant schools. It demanded that in number 
of professors and in salaries paid they should be made 
equal to the Austrian state schools; else their graduates 
would not be recognized, and would be excluded from the 
professions and from all important civil offices. It was 
necessary within a limited time for the Unitarians to raise 
something like $70,000; and the demand struck them, of 
all Protestants, most heavily, since they were the fewest 
and the poorest. They were horror-struck, for they re- 
alized that the demands had been purposely made so high 
that they could not possibly be complied with. In that 
case the government proposed to take their schools over, 
and Unitarian young people would henceforth have to be 
educated under Catholic or orthodox Protestant influences. 
Fortunately an English Unitarian named John Paget had 
long been living in Transylvania, and had been actively in- 
terested in the Unitarian cause there. He presented to the 
English Unitarians the appeal which their Transylvanian 
brethren sent forth, and by them it was also forwarded to 
America. The English raised 13,000 florins ($5,200), and 
sent it in 1858 by the hand of their Secretary, Mr. Tagart, 
who was the first English Unitarian minister to visit them. 
He brought them direct personal assurance of foreign sym- 
pathy, which gave them the greatest encouragement to con- 
tinue their struggle. All arrangements were made to take 


UNITARIANISM UNDER AUSTRIAN RULE = 273 


up a collection also in the American churches, when a sud- 
den and overwhelming financial panic swept over the coun- 
try, so that nothing effective could be done. The Tran- 
sylvanians themselves were roused as never before to save 
their cause from ruin. They were all poor people, mostly 
farmers or villagers; but by assessments and subscriptions, 
and by mortgaging their farms to an eighth of their value, 
and making the most enormous sacrifices, they managed 
to raise in all as much as $72,000. Although they could 
not meet the full demands made upon them, their cause was 
saved, for their schools remained their own. The crisis 
had proved in some ways a blessing in disguise; for it 
awakened, as nothing else might have done, their dormant 
appreciation of what their church meant to them, it raised 
up friends in the West whose generous interest has been 
more active for them since that day, and it greatly im- 
proved their schools. 

After this storm there now came another long period of 
calm. The churches now numbered but few over 100, and 
the members only from 50,000 to 60,000, but again they 
took fresh heart. They were granted leave to elect a 
bishop again in 1861, and the honorable title of bishop, 
which the Catholic government had since the seventeenth 
century refused to recognize, was at last restored in place 
of that of superintendent. Since 1867, when Transyl- 
vania was again united to Hungary, and the Hungarian 
constitution was restored, the Unitarian Church has had 
in Hungary all the equal rights which had been promised 
at the revolution of 1848. The three hundredth anniver- 
sary of the establishment of the church was celebrated in 
1868 with impressive ceremonies. State aid to the churches 


1In a century the number of churches had remained nearly sta- 
tionary, though their membership had about doubled. 


274 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


has been granted since that year, and Unitarians have been 
appointed to some of the highest state offices. Church 
funds have been increased. English and American visitors 
have come more and more frequently, and have made gen- 
erous gifts. The works of Channing and other western 
Unitarians have been translated and published in Hun- 
garian. The first Unitarian church in modern Hungary, 
organized at Budapest in 1875, has been followed by a 
dozen or more others on the territory where many churches 
had flourished three hundred years ago. This brings the 
romantic story of Unitarianism in Transylvania down to 
the end of the nineteenth century. 


CHAPTER XXVI 


THE UNITARIAN CHURCHES OF HUNGARY AND 
TRANSYLVANIA IN THE TWENTIETH 
CENTURY | 


From the beginning of the twentieth century to the year 
1914 the Unitarian Church in Transylvania, with its newer 
branches in Hungary proper, enjoyed a happy and pros- 
perous life. All signs pointed to a long period ahead in 
which it might devote itself to the work of pure religion, 
unhindered by persecution or misfortune. The principle 
of religious toleration appeared to be permanently estab- 
lished in Hungary, and the oppression of one religion by | 
another seemed forever a thing of the past. Ever since 
the revolution of 1848, which had brought all four churches 
closely together in the struggle against a common foe, the 
four “received religions” had lived side by side in the most 
friendly relations. It remains to describe the life of the 
churches during this period. 

The Hungarian Unitarian Church, as its legal name now 
ran, had early in the twentieth century about 160 churches, 
of which some fifty were filiale, or mission churches with no 
regular pastor, but only occasional supplies from neigh- 
boring churches, these latter being usually made up of 
converts from other forms of religion. The churches 
ranged in membership from a handful to over 2,000 each, 


and some fifteen had more than 1,000 members each. The 
PANES 


276 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


total membership was about 75,000, and was increasing 
pretty steadily at the rate of something over one per cent. 
a year. The great majority of the Unitarians were Szek- 
lers, the rest Magyars. They had few magnates or higher 
nobility, but were mostly of the middle and lower classes, 
chiefly villagers or farmers, and half of them poor. The 
ministers must all be graduates of the Unitarian college 
at Kolozsvar, and had generally taught a few years in the 
parish schools before entering the pastorate. Their salaries 
ranged from $320 to $700 a year, but a large share of 
this was often paid in produce. Each minister had beside 
this the use of his house and a small farm which he tilled 
with his own hands, often assisted by the members of his 
congregation. His wife would herself make the homespun 
which the family wore. Pastorates were usually for life, 
but after forty years’ service a minister might be pensioned, 
as his widow would also be, with provision also in case of 
aceident. 

If we went to visit one of the Szekler villages, we should 
find near the middle of its one long street a plain whitewashed 
church with belfry, and a school house near by. Entering 
on a Sunday we should find on the side of the room a high 
pulpit looking down on rows of plain wooden benches, all 
of them free. The men enter first, then the women, the 
elder before the younger. Men and women, all dressed in 
their gayest clothes, sit on opposite sides, with a large va- 
cant square separating them. The service is very simple, 
consisting only of prayer, hymns, Scripture, and sermon. 
There is now no liturgical form; but though the sermons 
are without manuscript the prayers are written out and 
read by the minister. He is gowned, and his sermon is 
likely to be on some theme of practical religion, with little 


RECENT HISTORY . 277 


doctrine, and no attack upon other churches or controversy 
with their beliefs, since this is forbidden by their constitu- 
tion. There is both morning and evening service on Sunday. 
On week-days, too, summer and winter, the farmers come to 
the church at day-break, for a brief service of morning 
prayer; and on returning from their work at the end of 
the day they go to the church for evening prayer before 
returning home. There are churches in which it is said that 
not a day has passed for over 300 years without this daily 
worship. The Lord’s Supper is observed four times in the 
year with great solemnity, for it is held in the greatest 
reverence. 

There were elementary schools connected with each of the 
larger parishes, where the Unitarian children were taught 
by young ministers as teachers, with salaries of about $200 
a year besides house and garden. At Kolozsvar, Torda, 
and Szekely Keresztur there were also Unitarian higher 
schools, or gymnasia; and at Kolozsvar was the Unitarian 
college and divinity school, with nearly 400 students, half 
of them from other churches; a faculty of some twenty-five 
well trained scholars, mostly ministers; a library of 50,000 
volumes, and a handsome stone building erected at the be- 
ginning of this century. All these institutions are sup- 
ported from the church funds, though even the college pro- 
fessors get hardly more than $500 a year and house, with 
a retiring pension. Though the Unitarians of Transyl- 
vania are a poor people, they have always paid especial at- 
tention to their schools, and these are so superior that they 
have been largely attended by students from Calvinist and 
Catholic homes. 

The organization of the churches somewhat resemntbles 
that of the Presbyterians, and is close and efficient. At the 


278 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 
head of the whole church is the bishop, though we shall 


better understand his office if we think of him as a superin- 
tendent, a title which a Catholic government long insisted 
on applying to him instead of the other and more ancient 
one. He has previously been a minister, and usually a 
professor at the Kolozsvar college. He has the general 
oversight of churches and schools, their property and in- 
come. He visits churches and schools, and inspects the 
work and character of the teachers and ministers; calls 
synods, ordains ministers, and gives them their appointments. 
His salary is but $1,200. The governing body of the whole 
church is called the representative consistory, which con- 
sists of ministers and influential laymen, and is headed by 
the bishop and two chief curators or lay presidents. It 
meets each month, and is responsible to the chief consistory, 
which meets once each year at Kolozsvar, and every fourth 
year in one of its districts. It examines the reports of the 
representative consistory, meets in different districts in turn, 
passes laws for the churches and schools, administers the 
more important affairs of the church, and elects the bishop 
when his office falls vacant. Once in four years the con- 
sistory holds an especially important session, which is then 
called a synod. ‘The church as a whole is divided into nine 
administrative districts, each of which is under the charge of 
an officer whom we may best describe as a district superin- 
tendent, or dean, who visits the churches and schools in 
his own district once every year and inspects their condi- 
tion. 

The beliefs of the Unitarian churches in Hungary are on 
the whole rather more conservative than those of English 
and American Unitarians. The Bible is taken as authority, 
and many of its traditions and teachings which have been 
abandoned by Unitarians in other lands are still accepted. 


RECENT HISTORY 279 


Such are the story of Adam and Eve, the miraculous birth of 
Jesus, and his resurrection and ascension. In most other 
respects the beliefs of the Hungarian Unitarians are not 
notably different from those of their brethren in other coun- 
tries; and the Christ-worship long required by law and ob- 
served in form has disappeared from practice and from 
statements of belief. 

The Transylvanian Unitarians throughout their history 
not only have been devoted and heroic in the extreme, as 
the previous chapters have amply shown, but in other re- 
spects they have manifested such characters as one might 
expect from those whose beliefs and practices are plain and 
simple, and who lay the greater stress upon homely piety and 
the good life because they attach the less importance to 
creeds and ceremonies. In the earlier period of their history 
an old Hungarian chronicler recorded that the Szekler Uni- 
tarians were stricter in their morals than other Hungarians. 
When Maria Theresia was employing every device to perse- 
cute the Unitarian Church out of existence, a Catholic 
bishop wrote to the court in Vienna that its members were 
thrifty, industrious, law-abiding, and exemplary citizens; 
but that these very qualities, and the growing prosperity 
that they produced, made their detestable doctrines the more 
dangerous and the more likely to infect their neighbors, 
while they were also a standing reproach to the character of 
the Catholic clergy. He therefore strongly urged that they 
be repressed. A Protestant historian a generation later re- 
ports that “their simple worship, the strict morality of 
their communities, the dignity, piety, and learning of their 
superintendents, have gained for them great consideration 
in the country.” A German traveler of the last generation 
speaks of them as highly respected by the other churches for 
the fervor and simplicity of their faith, and says that their 


280 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


schools, the morality of their villages, and their Sabbath 
observance, are universally praised. They are devoted to 
good education and to political freedom and progress, a 
brave, energetic, intelligent, and virtuous people, whose in- 
fluence on the higher life of the country is admitted to 
be quite out of proportion to their numbers; while their 
influence upon religious thought has been such that many in 
other churches, even as in England and America, accept 
their beliefs, though not confessing their name. 

Our story should have ended happily with the nineteenth 
century; but the great World War makes it necessary to 
add a supplement of new oppressions and sufferings, per- 
haps more nearly fatal than any previous ones in all the 
long and tragic history. In 1914 the brave Szekler farm- 
ers were called to arms, and many of them left their homes, 
never to return. This fact alone, added to the usual hard- 
ships of war, must have greatly weakened their churches. 
In 1916 the Rumanians invaded Transylvania, overrunning 
Szeklerland, though little else, before they were driven back. 
This meant further ruin to the Unitarian churches so nu- 
merous on that frontier. Finally, just as the war was at 
an end, the Rumanians again seized the now helpless land 
and began a brutal rule of oppression, robbery, and violence 
little if any milder than that used by the Germans in Bel- 
gium and France. The churches were oppressed and their 
people maltreated as almost never before in the whole long 
history of their martyrdom; their ministers deprived of their 
living, and in some cases imprisoned; their venerable Bishop 
Ferencz held captive, and forbidden communication with 
his churches or ministers; many of their members exiled and 
deprived of their homes or farms; their schools closed; their 
professional men reduced to manual labor; the church es- 
tates divided up among Rumanian peasants. The British 


RECENT HISTORY 281 


and American churches have come to the rescue as far as 
rescue is possible, but only time can tell whether the heroic 
endurance so often shown in the past will be equal to these 
latest and severest trials. 

It is often asked why Unitarianism, if it be true, has 
not spread faster. Each chapter of this history makes 
one part of the artswer more clear. It did not spread in 
Italy, Switzerland, and Germany because it was crushed 
out by oppression, even unto death, before it ever had 
even a fair chance to be heard and judged on its merits. 
Other faiths were never willing to meet it on equal terms. 
They were protected and supported by the state, while the 
state treated Unitarianism as a crime. In Poland, so long 
as it had even half-way protection under the law, it did 
spread and thrive wonderfully, as we have seen, in spite 
of the relentless opposition of every other form of religion, 
Catholic or Protestant; and it perished there only because 
the government abandoned its principle of toleration and 
made the profession of Unitarianism a capital offense. In 
Transylvanta where, for the first time in history thus far, 
it had both the protection of equal laws and the active sup- 
port of the rulers, it soon converted almost the whole coun- 
try, though even then it did nothing to oppress rival faiths ; 
and three centuries of oppression did not succeed in de- 
stroying it. What the result would have been if Unita- 
rianism, arising only a few years later than Lutheranism, 
and even earlier than Calvinism, had in the past four cen- 
turies been given a chance to spread its doctrines in fair 
and even competition with theirs, can only be imagined. 
But we have next to follow the story of it in England, and 
to see how, after some early persecutions and a few martyr- 
doms, it has for two happier centuries flourished there un- 
der freer laws and a more tolerant spirit. 












SE roe cA: ea bh 





¢ y ? rr. e fi se ‘@ 
2 SR I! 2 i, eT: 





a 


iki rs coon eu 
ee Ls ha en seal ny 


2 i + me dy 3 





“ti ite hk 












ok Wik ie ; 'e : ‘ ss (aWis 
- 
i 


, , ’ P | ; 
| Au) PROERG RCRD RD Rte are 8 Ter LON wae ay pst 




















phys : 4 ed A erag } fig syetihy s% ae 
q : fi Se OT rt F c ; so t L ~ 
: 2 aes fit ; \ AR at . pS Oe At hs EEE) 
Va iarg = g , Ee heer Sh oe 
- “ OS Pak BV 90 tae ‘ +? i bd ¥ Pat = er. VES 
‘ y. ‘ 2 ee 
‘ Bay Se oF 34 ARs he vas 3 FE eo La ene 
7 : ; , a“ ans ie) i, ps, Py, r ‘a ] - 4 a iH hateae ye ere | 
: : : 4 i ‘aay ey ' beth ty aot eae te 
a F : nx . ay hy A ee ’ 
4 seh ie caf f Te i eae Fand e 
; 4 es Sat) ’ Teer Ae re bad Ie RAT bes: 
é a ‘ , ; 7 
a ott bar) : i oa) 
* S79 ral re 
: Lene a 
é vin 
P ; ery ie “wy 
pik et ht ae iy Sty 5 aiken 
bi A TOBE e i nthe’ a 
¢ it A sy a : { 
Ait heed fF: yikes phous iad 
pee [al oleae in ei * Pra aft R Ret et eri ral mM 
“ ; ; ; 7 or, ' 3 ; 
ess oA Bs es uate ie fi fe inte Bh ‘bt he a ' 
; m maT ib Ah, AK. He 3 Wis sath sieggai ean * 
Beer Lee slslink eet oot a 
S oo) 9 ry a 


.” Maes ay i 

Meret ke apt by 

pie A a 5 i ‘ 

} ouey F eg oh 

: a? *) Woe 

’ o% 

' f 

ae a | 

7 ¥ ; 

re. (3 v ‘A 

> Tas PY q y vt 





DIVISION V 


UNITARIANISM IN ENGLAND 


‘ 
7) 





CHAPTER XXVII 


THE PIONEERS OF UNITARIANISM IN 
ENGLAND, TO 1644 


Thus far the path of our history has never been long or 
far out of sight of the stake, the block, or the prison; and 
the impression that remains most vivid with us out of the 
story of Unitarianism on the Continent is that of the per- 
secutions it had to suffer. It will be a relief, therefore, 
to enter upon a further stage of our journey from which 
persecution is largely absent. In England, it is true, as 
we shall soon see, a few in the first century of the Reforma- 
tion were put to death, and more were imprisoned, for 
denying the doctrine of the Trinity; but long before Uni- 
tarianism began to be an organized movement there, capital 
punishment, or even imprisonment, for heresy had ceased 
in England, and by comparison with what their brethren 
on the continent had suffered, the civil oppressions that 
English Unitarians had to endure can be called hardly 
more than inconveniences. 

The permanent history of Christianity in England began 
when Augustine, “the Apostle of the Anglo-Saxons,” was 
sent from Rome at the end of the sixth century as mission- 
ary. The English were for centuries devotedly faithful 
to the Church of Rome, and perhaps nowhere had it had a 
more splendid history than there, as its glorious cathedrals, 
and the monasteries and abbeys still beautiful in their ruins, 


bear witness. Long before the Reformation, however, Eng- 
285 


286 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


lish kings had become more or less restive under the exac- 
tions of the Pope, and his claims of authority over England; 
while at the same time the people at large were growing 
impatient of the great wealth and increasing corruption 
of the monks and priests, and hungry for pure religion. 
In the fourteenth century, in the time of John Wyclif, one 
of the “Reformers before the Reformation,” an earnest 
effort was made to get the abuses of the Church reformed ; 
and the Bible was translated into English and circulated 
in manuscript, so that those that were able to do so might 
read it for themselves, instead of having to depend for 
their religious teaching wholly upon the priests. For the 
time nothing permanent seemed to come of it; but a century 
and a half later, when Henry VIII, for reasons of his own, 
threw off his allegiance to the Pope, and had himself made 
the head of the Church of England, he found large sup- 
port from his people. 

The English Reformation thus begun was mostly a po- 
litical affair, and for some time no important changes were 
made in the doctrines or ceremonies of the Church. On 
the contrary, those that held the doctrines of Luther were 
severely persecuted. The Bible and the three ancient creeds 
were taken as authority; and the king authorized the pub- 
lication of the English Bible, which was ordered to be set 
up in all the parish churches, so that all might have a 
chance to read it. A hundred thousand copies of it were 
in circulation within about twenty years, and the reading 
of it not only helped on the Reformation among the people, 
but eventually, as we shall see, paved the way for further 
reform of doctrine. Reformation of the Catholic doctrines 
went slowly on under the leadership of the clergy, until 
at length, under Edward VI, who was a convinced Protes- 
tant, a new Prayer Book was adopted, and new Articles . 


PIONEERS IN ENGLAND 287 


of Religion, and so the Church of England became definitely 
established in its own ways. Queen Mary tried her best to 
restore the Catholic religion, and to this end put many 
Protestants to death, while many more fled to Geneva, where 
they came under the influence of Calvin; but her reign was 
short. Upon her death the Protestants returned in full 
force, and under Elizabeth the Reformation was fully or- 
ganized, with a doctrine which was a compromise between 
Calvin and Luther, and a form of worship and ceremonies 
which were a compromise between Catholic and Protestant. 
Many of the Protestants, however, thought that the Ref- 
ormation ought to be carried much further, so as to purify 
the Church of all traces of Romanism in doctrines, govern- 
ment, ceremonies, and forms of worship. These came to 
be known as the Puritans, and for a century or more they 
formed the most vital element in English religious life. 
In Elizabeth’s time they developed in two different direc- 
tions. The one of these was taken by those who despaired 
of any satisfactory reform in the Church of England, and 
therefore withdrew from it entirely. These became known 
as Separatists. Some of them remained in England, and, 
despite persecution, multiplied and at length became power- 
ful; others fled to Holland, and thence in 1620 to New Eng- 
land, as the Pilgrim Fathers. The other party, the Puri- 
tans proper, although they disapproved of many things in 
the Church of England, tried to stay within it, hoping to be 
able to bring about the reforms they desired. They ob- 
jected to government of the Church by a superior order of 
bishops, preferring a Presbyterian form of government; 
and they so much disapproved of liturgy that they would 
not use it in worship. Hence when Elizabeth, in order to 
secure uniform worship in all the English churches, tried 
to enforce an Act of Uniformity (1559), the Puritans be- 


288 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


gan to worship in separate meetings of their own, and even- 
tually to form their own separate organizations. 

Many were the attempts to hold the Protestants of Eng- 
land together by force in one national Church, with one 
government and one form of worship. Elizabeth, James I, 
and Charles I severely persecuted those who refused to con- 
form. Then came a reaction: the Puritans gained con- 
trol of Parliament, and for a short time the established 
religion of England was Presbyterian. Then, under Crom- 
well, control passed into the hands of the Independents, 
until at length under Charles II the Episcopal Church 
was again established, and in 1662 was passed the Act of 
Uniformity, requiring that all congregations conform to 
the prescribed form of worship, and that all ministers be 
ordained by bishops. This was the beginning of that deep 
division of English Protestantism into Anglicans and Non- 
conformists which has continued to this day; for out of 
the 9,000 clergy in the Church of England, some 2,500 
refused to conform, and were therefore compelled to leave 
their pulpits and give up their livings. They were for 
the most part the ablest and most earnest of the whole 
clergy. Additional acts of Parliament were soon passed 
to oppress the Nonconformists yet more severely, and their 
lot was a most unhappy one until 1689, when the passage 
of the Toleration Act permitted them again on certain 
conditions to meet together for public worship under their 
own forms. During all this period since the rise of the 
Puritans, questions of doctrine had been little attended to; 
but while the Puritans still remained strict Calvinists, the 
Church of England had softened down its Calvinism toward 
that Arminianism which we have already met * among the 
Remonstrants in Holland. Not heresy in points of doc- 


1See page 200. 


PIONEERS IN ENGLAND 289 


trine, but nonconformity in service of worship, was re- 
garded as the great offense, and was most often punished 
under the laws. 

It was out of such conditions in the religious life of Eng- 
land, disturbed not only by the hostility between Protes- 
tants and Catholics, but by controversies scarcely less bit- 
ter among the Protestants themselves over the forms of 
worship or of church organization and government, that 
English Unitarians arose. The movement began, as in 
other countries, with its little army of martyrs, for the 
act for the burning of heretics was enforced until 1612.* 
Even after that Unitarianism was lable to legal prosecu- 
tion during many generations; for deniers of the Trinity, 
as well as Catholics, were expressly excluded from the bene- 
fits of the Toleration Act; while the Blasphemy Act of 
1698 was especially aimed at Antitrinitarians, punishing 
their offense with civil disability and, if repeated, with im- 
prisonment. ‘They were not relieved of this until 1813. In 
a country where the Established Church controls nearly 
all the social prestige, and where dissent is widely regarded 
as almost a badge of social inferiority, Unitarians have 
throughout had to bear not only their share of the burdens 
that fall to all Dissenters, but the additional one of being 
excluded by both Anglicans and Dissenters as_ heretics. 
Their oppressions and burdens are of course not for a mo- 
ment to be compared with those suffered by their brethren 
of like faith in Poland and Transylvania; yet they have 
been no light thing, and the bearing of them has developed 
devotion and heroism of a fine and sturdy type. 

The Unitarian movement in England did not spring from 
any single source. We may discover at least four fairly 
distinct streams of influence that flowed together in it before 


1The act dated from 1401, and was not repealed until 1677. 


290 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the end of the seventeenth century. ‘These are: first, the 
influence of the Bible itself ; second, the influence of Italians 
and other foreign thinkers at the Strangers’ Church in Lon- 
don; third, Anabaptist influences; and fourth, the influence 
of Socinianism. Let us examine each of these in turn. 
Wyclif’s manuscript translations of the Bible had been 
widely circulated from about 1380 on, and it is said that 
some of his followers were tinged with Antitrinitarianism ; 
but this Bible had to be read in secret, as did Tyndale’s first 
printed New Testament of 1525, for fear of the law. In 
1535, however, the English Bible began to be accessible to 
all, and many were reading it for the first time. First and 
last the influence of this book, when read in comparison with 
the creeds, has underlain all others leading men to reject the 
doctrine of the Trinity. Some of the most notable of the 
early English Unitarians declared they had never read nor 
heard the Unitarian doctrine, but had come to it solely 
through reading their Bibles. This influence was likely to 
be the more powerful, since the Articles of Religion of the 
Church of England themselves expressly declared that the 
Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation, and 
that one need not believe anything not supported by them. 
The second influence was found in the Strangers’ Church. 
In the first generation of the Reformation many Prot- 
estants from Catholic countries on the continent fled to 
Protestant England for freedom of worship and safety 
from persecution. There were Italians, Spaniards, Dutch, 
French, and others. Since they could not understand or 
speak English, they could neither worship in the English 
churches nor be overseen by the English bishops. Hence a 
Church of the Strangers (1. e., foreigners) was chartered in 
London in 1550 to be under the oversight of a superintend- 
ent of its own, subject to the Bishop of London. It had 


PIONEERS IN ENGLAND 291 


at one time 5,000 members, and branches in eleven provin- 
cial towns. Since these churches received free spirits from 
all quarters, and since on account of their foreign tongues 
they could not be closely watched, they might easily become 
infested with heresy. To the church in London came 
Ochino,' not yet an Antitrinitarian, but headed in that direc- 
tion; Giacomo Aconzio,” who was denied the communion on 
account of his alleged Arianism; Cassiodora de Reyna, a 
professed follower of Servetus, and minister to a Spanish 
congregation of the church for five years; Lelius Socinus,? 
and doubtless others less known to fame. Discussion of 
doctrines during the first generation of Protestant thinking 
may very well have been as free here as it was in the similar 
Italian church at Geneva‘ at about the same time; and 
though it does not seem very likely that this church of for- 
eigners had wide influence upon the beliefs of Englishmen, 
it is known that several of those that were punished for 
some form of Antitrinitarianism had been connected with it. 

A more important influence was that of the Anabaptists, 
whose connection with antitrinitarian thought we have often 
noted in earlier chapters. In 1535 many of them fled to 
England to escape a severe persecution which had broken 
out against them in Holland, in which one of their number 
had been cruelly put to death. They were received with 
tolerance, and soon spread through the kingdom, especially 
in the eastern counties, actively spreading their peculiar 
doctrines as they went. Their theology was not settled, but 
they took only the Bible for their authority; and upon this 
some of them built extravagant and fantastic doctrines, 

1See pages 71-72, 101, 111-114. 

2See page 293. 

3 See pages 114-116. 


4See pages 101, 102. 
5 See chapters vii, xv, xxi. 


292 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


while some of them revived old heresies as to the Trinity or 
the person of Christ, or invented new ones of their own. 
Before many years their teachings began to attract the 
attention of the authorities, and for being Anabaptists 
twenty-eight of them were burnt under Henry VIII, and 
many more under Edward VI. Just what their heresies 
were does not clearly appear, for they were more or less 
vague and confused in their thinking, and their doctrines 
have doubtless been misunderstood or misrepresented by 
their persecutors who tell us of them; but there was prob- 
ably more or less Arianism or Antitrinitarianism mixed up 
with them, for we know that Arian and Anabaptist were 
often used as synonymous terms in the sixteenth century. 
Seeing that they were of a humble class of people, and that 
there was much about them to create prejudice in the public 
mind, it does not seem likely that they had a very important 
influence in preparing the ground for Unitarianism in the 
quarters in which it finally took permanent root. 

Some of these humble Christians, though we know little 
of them beyond their martyrdom, deserve to be mentioned 
and remembered by us for what they suffered as the first 
rude pioneers of our faith in England. Passing by the Rev. 
John Assheton of Lincolnshire, who was the first English 
Protestant known to have been called to account for deny- 
ing the Trinity and the deity of Christ, but who in order to 
escape the stake confessed his crime and recanted his “er- 
rors, heresies, and damned opinions” in 1548, we find our 
first actual martyr in England in 1551, at a time when there 
was much alarm in church circles over the rapid spread of 
“Arianism,” and strict measures seemed necessary to re- 
press it. Dr. George van Parris, a surgeon who had come 
from Mainz to London to practice his profession among the 
Dutch there, and was highly praised for his godly life, was 


PIONEERS IN ENGLAND 293 


excommunicated from the Dutch branch of the Strangers’ 
Church for declaring that Christ was not very God, and 
was burnt at Smithfield in 1551. He was apparently an 
Arian. In Queen Mary’s time, while a number accused of 
Antitrinitarianism saved their lives by recanting, one 
Patrick Packingham, a dealer in hides, was burnt at Ux- 
bridge in 1555, and others were imprisoned. Even in prison 
our heretics could not refrain from discussing the disputed 
doctrines with their orthodox fellow-prisoners; and when 
reason fell short, other forms of argument were used, as ap- 
pears from the quaint and impassioned Apology of John 
Philpot: written for spittyng on an Arian, by a reverend 
Archdeacon of Winchester, whom Mary had imprisoned for 
his Protestantism, and later sent to the stake. 

When Elizabeth came to the throne, the law for burning 
heretics was abolished, and she was so much inclined to broad 
toleration in religious beliefs that she accepted Aconzio’s 
dedication to her of a book which urged that the necessary 
beliefs should be reduced to the fewest and simplest.t But 
the Anabaptists kept coming into the country too fast, and 
heresy gained ground so rapidly that the fires had to be 
lighted again. In 1575 a whole little congregation of 
Flemish Anabaptists while holding a secret meeting in 
London were arrested and imprisoned for a heresy with re- 

1 Aconzio was an Italian, a lawyer by profession, who had also de- 
voted himself to military engineering. Becoming Protestant in faith 
he fled from Italy, came to England, and was long in Elizabeth’s service 
constructing fortifications. He was the most distinguished member 
of the Strangers’ Church, but was excommunicated from it for his 
views, and a little later, in 1565, published his Stratagems of Satan, 
which was published in five different languages and in print for more 
than a century, and had a wide and powerful influence throughout 
Europe in encouraging liberal beliefs and a tolerant spirit. Whether 


or not he believed in the Trinity, he at least did not think it an essen- 
tial doctrine. 


294 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


gard to the birth of Christ, and were threatened with death. 
Most were banished, a few recanted, and one died in prison, 
while Jan Peters and Hendrik Terwoort were burnt at 
Smithfield. In 1579 Matthew Hamont, a ploughwright, was 
burned at Norwich for denying the deity of Christ; as were 
also John Lewes in 1588, Peter Cole, a tanner, in 1587, and 
the Rev. Francis Ket in-1589. James I, indeed, deemed 
it better policy to let heretics silently waste away in prison 
than to give them public execution, and no doubt many came 
to their end thus whose names remain unknown. It deserves 
mention, however, that the last two persons put to death in 
England for heresy were Antitrinitarians, Bartholomew 
Legate burnt at Smithfield (his brother Thomas also died in 
prison), and Edward Wightman burnt at Lichfield, both 
under King James in 1612. When already at the stake 
Legate was offered pardon if he would recant, but he re- 
mained stedfast. Wightman, feeling the pain of the fire, 
recanted and was set free, but later refused to confirm his 
act and was burnt. The law under which these things were 
done remained nominally in force until 1676; and in Scot- 
land as late as 1697 a young student of eighteen, Thomas 
Aikenhead, was hanged at Edinburgh charged with deny- 
ing the Trinity. But one more victim may be mentioned, 


> who was condemned to death 


a nameless Spanish ‘Arian,’ 
at about this time, but wasted away in prison at Newgate. » 

Thus even in England at least ten Protestants were put 
to death for some form of Unitarianism, and there is no 
telling how many more died in prison. All or nearly all 
of these got their heresy from Anabaptist sources; and 
many others who suffered on the general charge of being 
Anabaptists may have held similar views. Of course, it is 
not to be supposed that these martyrs held what is known 
as Unitarianism to-day; for many of their views would no 


PIONEERS IN ENGLAND 295 


doubt seem to us very extraordinary. The noteworthy 
thing is that they were all reaching out after some views of 
the nature of God, and the nature and work of Christ, 
which should satisfy them better than the teachings of the 
creeds. They were therefore true pioneers of Unitarian- 
ism. But they were for the most part isolated from one 
another, they formed no concerted movement, and they 
were so mercilessly persecuted out of existence that they 
do not seem to have left behind them any great influence 
upon the Unitarian movement that later established itself 
in England. 

Beyond doubt the widest and deepest influence, there- 
fore, of the four that were mentioned above, was that of 
Socinianism, which became active in England from early 
in the seventeenth century. It is likely that this was first 
introduced into England through Socinian books, many of 
which had by this time been published in Holland; but 
both before and after their exile from Poland occasional 
Socinian scholars kept coming to England and making the 
acquaintance of scholars and churchmen there. At a later 
time also these influences were reénforced by many English- 
men who went to Dutch universities to study, and there 
came into contact either with Socinians or with Socinian 
thought among the Remonstrants. In these ways Socinian- 
ism kept exercising a steady influence upon English relig- 
ious thought until well into the eighteenth century, by which 
time English Unitarians had long been exerting an independ- 
ent influence of their own. This influence was shown in par- 
ticular in three different ways: the acceptance of the Socin- 
ian spirit of tolerance of difference in belief (which led to 
the Latitudinarian movement in the Church of England), 
the application of the Socinian test of reason to religious 
doctrines, and the adoption of Socinian doctrines as to God, 


296 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Christ, or the atonement. The name Socinian was loosely 
applied to all three of these tendencies, so that many were 
called Socinians for one or other of the first two reasons 
who never accepted the Socinian system of doctrine. 

Wide public attention in England was first drawn to So- 
cinianism (as had perhaps been intended) by the dedica- 
tion of the first Latin edition of the Racovian Catechism * 
(1609) to King James I. His majesty evidently did not 
much appreciate the compliment, for the work was burnt 
by royal command five years later. It may indeed have 
tended to rouse his anger against Legate and Wightman. 
James was a Scotch Calvinist born and bred, and deemed 
himself no mean theologian; for when Vorst’s book On God 
and His Attributes was being imported from Holland, he 
not only had it burnt at the two universities and at Lon- 
don in 1611 (the same year in which the “King James 
Version” of the Bible was published), but he wrote a book 
himself to confute it, calling Vorst a monster and a blas- 
phemer, and using his influence to get Vorst dismissed from 
his chair at the university. The flames, however, were 
unable to keep Socinian books from coming into the coun- 
try more and more; for before the middle of the century 
Socinian commentaries, catechisms, and doctrinal and con- 
troversial writings in Latin for the use of scholars, were be- 
ing printed in great numbers in Holland, and a few were 
printed even in England. A synod of the Church of Eng- 
land finally took notice of all this, and in 1640 adopted 
measures to check “tthe damnable and cursed heresy of So- 
cinianism,” prohibiting all but the higher clergy and stu- 
dents in divinity from having or reading Socinian books 
(implying that they had already come into common circu- 


1See page 159. 
2See page 197. 


PIONEERS IN ENGLAND 297 


lation), yet thus at the same time leaving the door as wide 
open as any reasonable Socinian could have asked. Never- 
theless it was still declared in 1672 that one could buy 
Socinian books as readily as the Bible. 

A few Socinians also came in person. Adam Franck was 
discovered by Archbishop Laud in 1639 when, doubtless 
as a Socinian missionary, he was trying to make converts 
among the students at Cambridge. Wiszowaty+ came to 
England as a traveling missionary early in life, and met 
several distinguished men. At least four members of the 
distinguished Socinian family Crellius * visited England, of 
whom Paul studied at Cambridge, while Samuel in repeated 
visits formed an intimate friendship with the Earl of 
Shaftesbury, and with Archbishop Tillotson, who publicly 
spoke in high appreciation of the Socinians, and was un- 
fairly charged with being one himself. Several Unitarians 
also came from Transylvania, while Paul Best, who had 
traveled from England thither and to Poland, had debated 
with the Unitarians in Transylvania and been converted to 
their views, had studied Unitarian theology in Germany for 
some years, and had finally returned to England full of mis- 
sionary spirit, was condemned to death by Parliament in 
1645 for denying the Trinity, though the sentence was never 
executed and he was released after being two or three years 
in prison. 

Many more examples might be given to show how wide 
and deep the spread of Socinian influence in England was 
coming to be. At the time of which we speak it was not 
yet an organized movement—the laws stood in the way of 
that; but it was a ferment everywhere present. The or- 
thodox writers realized this and wrote book after book full 


1 See page 187. 
2 See page 190. 


298 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


of warning. One writer enumerated 180 different flagrant 
heresies that had come from independent study of the Scrip- 
tures without the restraint of the creeds, and among these 
the Socinian teachings are most prominent. Another says 
Socinianism is corrupting the very vitals of church and 
state, which are much endangered by it. A third wrote 
three volumes to describe the gangrene that was infecting 
the nation. <A fourth writes, “There is not a city, a town, 
scarce a village in England where some of this poison is not 
poured forth.” By such warnings as these Parliament was 
finally spurred up to pass in 1648 a “Draconic ordinance” 
against blasphemies and heresies, which made denial of the 
Trinity or the deity of Christ a felony, punishable by death, 
without benefit of clergy. Within a few months, however, 
the government changed, so that the law was never carried 
into effect, and the heresy kept on spreading. In the next 
chapter we shall see how this widespread movement came 
to a head in a man who by his voice and his pen gave it 
personal leadership, and thus became “the father of the 
English Unitarians,” John Bidle. 


CHAPTER XXVIII 


JOHN BIDLE AND HIS SUCCESSORS, 
1644-1687 


The pioneers of Unitarianism in England whose influence 
we traced in the last chapter were isolated and widely sep- 
arated individuals. ‘They had no separate congregations 
where they might spread Unitarianism by preaching, they 
wrote no books to spread it among those who might read, 
and they made no effort to work together and organize a 
movement. “These all died in faith, not having received 
the promises,” and they left no descendants to continue 
their work. In contrast to these we turn now to another 
pioneer who was, with one possible exception, the first Eng- 
lishman to gather and preach to a Unitarian congregation, 
and the first one to publish Unitarian books, a man who 
spent a large part of his adult life in prison for his faith, 
but left behind him friends and followers who continued 
his work, so that the movement he started has continued 
to this day. He is therefore deservedly called “the father 
of the English Unitarians.” 

John Bidle + was born in 1615/6 at Wotton-under-Edge, 
Gloucestershire, the son of a dealer in woollen cloth. 
Before he was ten years old he showed such promise at 
school that a neighboring nobleman was led to make a hand- 
some annual contribution toward his education. In due 
time he proceeded to the University of Oxford, and was ad- 


1The name has more commonly been spelt Biddle. 
299 


300 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


mitted to study at Magdalen Hall, where he graduated in 
1638 with high reputation as a scholar, became a tutor, and 
at length received the Master’s degree. His reputation now 
brought him an appointment as master of the Crypt School 
at Gloucester, where his teaching gave great satisfaction. 

At the university he had already shown an independent 
mind, and now, rather than blindly to accept what others 
declared were the doctrines of the Bible, he set himself while 
teaching to studying it for himself. He came to know the 
New Testament so well that he had it all by heart except the 
last few chapters, in both English and Greek. Though he 
had never read any Socinian writing, he became convinced 
from the Bible alone that it does not teach the common doc- 
trine about the Trinity, and he also felt that the doctrine 
was not reasonable in itself. He frankly told his thoughts 
to others, but they complained of him to the authorities, and 
he was held to answer the charge of heresy. The author- 
ities were not satisfied with his confession of faith in one 
God in but one person, and in Christ as truly God; but 
after a few days, having considered that perhaps the words 
might be variously understood, he consented to express be- 
lief in the three persons. 

Bidle now continued to study the Bible more earnestly 
than ever, and at length drew up his conclusions in the 
shape of XII Arguments drawn out of the Scripture; 
wherein the commonly-recetved Opinion touching the Deity 
of the Holy Spirit, is clearly and fully refuted. These 
arguments were formally stated like propositions in logic, 
and were supported by Scripture texts and comments upon 
them. This paper he showed to some friends, one of whom 
forthwith again reported him as a heretic; and the result 
was that, although he was dangerously ill, he was at once 
thrown into jail, to be held until Parliament could act on 


JOHN BIDLE 301 


his case. The larger part of the remaining seventeen years 
of his life he spent in prison or exile for his religious faith. 
An influential friend soon procured his release on bail, until 
six months later he was summoned to Westminster for trial. 
Here he made no secret of his not believing in the deity 
of the Holy Spirit unless he should be convinced otherwise 
from Scripture, but he refused to commit himself as to the 
deity of Christ, which had been made no part of the charge 
against him. The case dragged on, and for many months 
he was held in custody. He at length appealed to Sir 
Henry Vane to get his case determined; but although he 
was often called up for further examination before the As- 
sembly of Divines at Westminster, nothing resulted, and he 
was kept in confinement for the next five years. 

He now resolved to appeal to the public, and managed to 
get his XII Arguments published (1647). It was only a 
little pamphlet, hardly more than a tract, of less than 
fifty pages of very small size, and altogether it contained 
no more matter than the short gospel of Mark; but it 
created a tremendous sensation. Bidle when called into 
court did not deny responsibility for it, whereupon he was 
sent back to prison, and it was ordered that his blasphe- 
mous pamphlet be called in and burnt by the hangman. 
This only increased its reputation, and a second edition was 
sold before the end of the year. Its arguments were so 
convincing, and its influence was so much feared, that two 
large books were written the next year, and a third later, 
to confute it. It was also carried to the Continent, and in 
Holland it was so much read that a famous Dutch theo- 
logian thought it necessary four years later to print a large 
volume against it. 

The next year Bidle proceeded to publish over his own 
name his second work, A Confession of Faith touching the 


302 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Holy Trinity, according to the Scripture (1648). It was 
about as long as the gospel of Matthew, yet still not more 
than a little pamphlet; but it created an even greater stir 
than the former tract. In this writing Bidle did not deny 
the doctrine of the Trinity, but simply tried to purify it 
of the corruptions that the Catholic Church had brought 
into it, and to bring it back into harmony with Scripture. 
Like Servetus,’ he objected to the philosophical terms that 
were used to express it, and argued that the doctrine as 
then taught gave us three Gods instead of one, stood in 
the way of pure religion, and prevented many from accept- 
ing Christianity. He therefore set forth his own belief as 
to the Trinity in six plain articles, each supported by Bi- 
ble texts and arguments upon them. Like Servetus, he held 
that though Christ had only a human nature, yet he was 
Son of God, and was also God. This tract was soon fol- 
lowed by a third, but little longer, in which he brought to- 
gether in support of his views quotations from the early 
Fathers of the Church. These tracts made so great a stir 
that to deter Bidle from repeating his offense, or any one 
else from following his example, Parliament passed a “Dra- 
conic Ordinance” * decreeing the death penalty against any 
one denying the Trinity or the deity of Christ or of the 
Holy Spirit. 

Fortunately for Bidle, this ordinance remained a dead 
letter for several years, during which the temper of Parlia- 
ment somewhat softened, and he was at length released on 
bail. He was allowed to go to Staffordshire, where the 
gentleman who had procured his release employed him as his 


1 There is no evidence that Bidle was acquainted with the writings 
of Servetus, but by now he had evidently come to know the Racovian 
Catechism, by which his Confession of Faith seems to have been 
influenced. 

2 See page 298, 


JOHN BIDLE 303 


chaplain, and appointed him preacher in one of the parish 
churches. It was not long, however, before he was ordered 
returned to prison, and although his friend dying soon 
after left him a small legacy, his scanty means were soon 
used up, so that he could not have obtained the ordinary 
comforts of life, had not another friend who knew of his 
fine scholarship secured employment for him in correcting 
the proofs of a new edition of the Septuagint. He was not 
only deserted by people in general, but only one clergyman 
visited him in all the six years. Finally in 1652 Parlia- 
ment passed a general Act of Oblivion, under which Bidle 
was released, and his broken imprisonment of more than 
six years was at anend. His little Confession of Faith and 
its sequel continued to have their influence, and as many 
as eight years after their publication a large book was 
published to refute them. 

Bidle’s long imprisonment had attracted much attention 
to him, and as soon as he was released he took advantage 
of the more tolerant policy of the government, which now 
favored religious liberty, and began holding meetings in 
London. Here he gathered together for religious worship 
every ‘Sunday many friends whom his little tracts had con- 
verted to his views, and he explained the Scriptures and 
preached to them. They organized an independent con- 
gregation which ere long began to attract the attention of 
strangers. Its members came to be known as Bidellians, 
and also as Socinians, though they themselves preferred to 
be called ‘‘mere Christians.” Although there are rumors 
of one or two similar congregations in England before this, 
they were obscure and short-lived, so that this congrega- 
tion of Bidle’s may fairly enough be called the first Uni- 
tarian church in England. It continued its meetings, with 
some interruptions, at least as long as Bidle lived. Ortho- 


304 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


dox ministers sometimes attended the meetings and en- 
tered into disputes with Bidle on points of doctrine, but 
they always found him ready to give reason for the faith 
that was in him. 

In 1651/2 a Latin edition of the Racovian Catechism was 
published in London, and when it was brought to the atten- 
tion of Parliament the next month its teachings were de- 


> and 


clared to be “blasphemous, erroneous, and scandalous,’ 
all copies that could be found were seized and burnt. Yet 
the following year an English translation was brought out.? 
At about the same time Bidle reprinted his earlier tracts 
and published an English translation of a life of Socinus 
and of two little Socinian tracts. These, however, were 
soon quite overshadowed by a new work of his own, A T'wo- 
fold Catechism * (1654), the second part being a brief Cate- 
chism for children. Bidle was by now well acquainted with 
the works of Socinus, but although he took many questions 
and answers from the Racovian Catechism, he was not wholly 
satisfied with it. In this book, therefore, he aimed to re- 
store the pure teaching of Christianity by giving answers 
entirely in the very words of Scripture, whose divine author- 
ity he accepted. This little book covered not only the doc- 


iThis is sometimes confused with the burning of the first Latin edi- 
tion in 1614. See page 296. 

2This translation is sometimes attributed to Bidle, but this is doubt- 
ful. It purported to have been printed in Holland. 

Two years after Bidle’s death this work was translated into Latin 
for circulation on the Continent by Nathaniel Stuckey, a lad of fifteen 
who had been a member of his congregation and was warmly attached 
to him. The boy died at sixteen, and the next year his mother under- 
took charge of the education of two of the children of Christopher 
Crellius, a distinguished Polish Socinian in exile. This indicates close 
relations between Bidle’s followers and the Socinians on the continent. 
It was the two sons of one of these children that emigrated to America. 
See page 190. 


JOHN BIDLE 305 


trine of the Trinity as his first tracts had done, but all the 
doctrines of Christianity, and it made much bolder attacks 
upon the orthodox doctrines than he had made before, and 
by sharp contrasts it showed how clearly they contradicted 
the words of the Scripture. 

The Catechism roused a greater storm than ever. It 
went over seas, and circulated widely in Holland, where 
it seems to have been translated into Dutch, and was re- 
garded as the most dangerous form of ‘Socinianism yet at- 
tempted. One of the Dutch theologians, who had already 
refuted the Racovian Catechism in a book five times its 
size, now came forward again to defend the orthodox doc- 


> which seemed to 


trine against Bidle’s ‘‘Socinian Atheism,’ 
be creeping into the country so fast; and in another large 
volume he took up and answered its teachings in great 
detail. Another took the English government to task for 
allowing Socinianism to spread so far. This criticism 
stung the English. The Council of State therefore re- 
quested the famous Dr. Owen of Oxford, who had lately an- 
swered the Racovian Catechism, to answer this one also. 
How serious a task he took it to be may be judged from 
the fact that his answer filled nearly 700 large and closely 
printed pages. Bidle was now attacked from many a pul- 
pit, and after having been at liberty for nearly three years 
he was brought before Parliament and charged with being 
the author of a book full of scandalous teaching. All 
copies of his book that could be found were ordered to 
be burnt, and he himself was placed in the closest confine- 
ment, and denied writing materials and any visitors. The 
prospect was that when his case came to trial he would be 
condemned to death; but after a few months Parliament 
was dissolved, and Bidle was set free before his case was 


called. 


306 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 
If one supposes that Bidle, warned by the danger he had 


so fortunately and unexpectedly escaped, now sought to 
avoid further trouble by preserving henceforth a discreet 
silence, he little understands the nature of John Bidle; 
for though he was the mildest and gentlest of men, he had 
a full measure of the excellent British virtue of obstinacy 
in a good cause. As soon as he was released from prison, 
instead of avoiding his enemies by leaving London, he re- 
mained right there, and went back to preaching precisely as 
he had done before. The orthodox were determined to put 
him to silence. His teaching had won a good many ad- 
herents in a Baptist congregation, whose pastor being much 
disturbed over the matter therefore challenged Bidle to a 
public debate. After declining for a time, Bidle at length 
consented, and when it was asked at the beginning of the 
debate whether any one present denied that Christ was God, 
he replied that he did. Even before the debate was con- 
cluded he found himself arrested and lodged in prison, to 
be tried for his life for this heresy, and at first he was not 
even allowed legal counsel. His trial aroused great public 
interest. The Presbyterians attended it, and presented pe- 
titions against him, while the Baptists appealed in his be- 
half, and printed various things in his favor. Cromwell, 
as head of the government, being unwilling wholly to of- 
fend either party, at length (1655) cut the knot by banish- 
ing Bidle for life to the Scilly Islands, though he after- 
wards showed where his sympathies lay by granting him 
a pension of a hundred crowns a year. 

Bidle was now at least out of danger, and occupied him- 
self with renewed study of the Bible; but after something 
over two years his friends at last succeeded in getting him 
set at liberty. He at once returned to London and began 


JOHN BIDLE 307 


preaching again, though after a few months a change in the 
government led him reluctantly to retire for safety into 
the country, to return once more to London as soon as 
danger seemed past. Charles II now came to the throne, 
however, and a new Act of Uniformity was passed, making 
it a crime to hold worship except under the forms of the 
Church of England. Bidle therefore held his meetings in 
private; but they were soon spied out, and he and his friends 
were all dragged away to prison. He was fined what was 
then the large sum of one hundred pounds, and was sen- 
tenced to lie in prison until it should be paid. The prison 
was so foul and the confinement so close that in a month 
he fell dangerously ill; and although he was at length al- 
lowed to be removed to a better place, he died two days 
later, September 22, 1662, at the early age of forty-seven. 
He had, indeed, not expected to survive another imprison- 
ment, and had been heard to say that ‘the work was done.’ 

John Bidle was a man of the most exalted personal char- 
acter, devout, reverent, and of the highest ideals of per- 
sonal religion and private life; firm for the truth, as we 
have seen, self-forgetting, devoted to the sick and the poor. 
But it is not these qualities, nor even the many persecutions 
that he suffered, that make him important in the history of 
Unitarianism; it is the fact that he did so much to stir 
people up to examine the doctrine of the Trinity, and hence 
to disbelieve it. He knew his Bible from cover to cover, 
and he relied fully upon it for his authority; but when he 
came to interpret it, he looked not to tradition but to reason 
for his guidance. In this he was like the Socinians; and like 
them he held that though Christ was not God, yet he was 
divine, and was to be worshiped. In two notable respects, 
however, he differed from them; for he held to a kind of 


308 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


“scriptural Trinity” of three divine persons, though deny- 
ing that the three are equal or make one God; and he held 
that the Holy Spirit is a person, though not God. 

Bidle had never sought to found a new sect, and the little 
congregation of his friends had slight chance of holding 
together long after his death. One John Knowles, indeed, 
who had fallen under Bidle’s influence long before, and is 
said to have preached Arianism at Chester as early as 1650, 
is thought to have succeeded him for a while; but he did not 
long escape prison, and then the congregation probably 
scattered. The Rev. Thomas Emlyn also preached to a 
Unitarian congregation in London for a few years early in 
the eighteenth century;+ and a generation later a meeting- 
house was built for an Arian Baptist preacher in Southwark 
who occupied it for more than two years. Save for these 
isolated instances, there was no organized Unitarian move- 
ment in England for more than a century after Bidle’s 
death. 

Bidle, indeed, like many before him in England, might have 
remained but another sporadic prophet of Unitarianism, 
had not his influence been continued in another way by the 
printing press, and through the efforts of one of his dis- 
ciples, Thomas Firmin, of whom we have now to speak. 
Firmin was born at Ipswich in 1632 of a family in the Puri- 
tan wing of the Church of England. In early manhood he 
came up to London to engage in business life, and here he 
soon fell under the influence of John Goodwin,? an Arminian 
minister who converted him from his Calvinism. It was at 
just this time that Bidle was preaching in London. Firmin 

1 See page 331. 


2 Goodwin had lately translated Aconzio’s Stratagems of Satan into 
English. See page 293. 


JOHN BIDLE 809 


made his acquaintance, became his devoted friend, and ac- 
cepted his beliefs. He also supported him for a time at his 
own expense, and helped to secure from Cromwell a pension 
for him in exile. 

Firmin was one of the leading philanthropists of his age. 
He became wealthy as a manufacturer and dealer in cloth, 
but Bidle’s devotion to them roused his interest in the poor 
and unfortunate. When the Socinian exiles from Poland 
appealed to English sympathizers for relief in their dis- 
tress,’ it was Firmin that raised a fund for them by private 
subscriptions from his friends, and by collections which his 
influence caused to be taken up in the churches. He pro- 
cured similar aid for the orthodox Protestants of Poland 
when their turn came to suffer in 1681, for Huguenot refu- 
gees from France in the same year, .and for Protestant 
refugees from Ireland under the oppressions of James II a 
few years later. He did much for sufferers by the great 
plague in 1665, and by the great fire in London the following 
year; established a warehouse where coal and grain were 
sold to the poor at cost, and set up factories where many 
hundreds of them when out of work might earn their living 
by making linen or woollen cloth; and besides giving gener- 
ously for poor relief out of his own purse, he was given very 
large sums by others who trusted him so fully that they 
never asked for an accounting. Moreover, he was a pio- 
neer in scientific charity, for, far ahead of his time, he de- 
vised a scheme for systematic employment of the poor, and 
used to investigate their needs by visiting in their homes. 
Finally, he took an active part in the reform of prisons, in 
behalf of those imprisoned for debt, in the work of hospitals, 
and in the reform of public manners. In all these ways he 


1See page 179. 


310 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


was the model for many a public-spirited Unitarian in later 
generations, who has like him been inspired to good works by 
the preaching and example of his minister. 

It was Firmin’s especial services to the cause of Unitari- 
anism, however, that bring him into this history. Although 
he attended Bidle’s services as long as they lasted, he never 
withdrew from the Church of England, and until his death 
in 1697 he maintained with Archbishop Tillotson and with 
most of the prominent clergy an intimate friendship, which 
was never broken despite his known difference from them in 
matters of belief. As a convinced Unitarian, however, he 
sought every means to spread Unitarian teachings. He is 
said to have had an important Polish Socinian work trans- 
lated and published in English not long after Bidle’s death, 
and to have assisted later on in bringing out a work by a 
liberal Anglican clergyman leading to the view that the 
English Church should be made so broad that a Socinian 
might join it. He also carried on the influence of Bidle in 
another way, and thus kindled a fire which has never since 
gone out. In 1687 he got the Rev. Stephen Nye, a clergy- 
man holding Unitarian beliefs, to prepare A Brief History 
of the Unitarians, called also Socinians. This led to con- 
troversy, and other tracts followed. These made so many 
converts that in 1691 Firmin, at his own expense, had these 
and others collected into a volume of Unitarian tracts, with 
Bidle’s first three tracts reprinted and standing at the head. 
Other tracts were collected later, many or most of them 
written by clergymen in the Established Church, until at 
length there were five volumes of them, the last two published 
after Firmin’s death. These writings stirred up the cele- 
brated Trinitarian Controversy in the Church of England, 


1 Respectively, John Crellius’s Two Books touching One God the 
Father, 1665; and Dr. Arthur Bury’s The Naked Gospel, 1690. 


JOHN BIDLE 311 


of which we shall speak in the next chapter, and they made 
sure that the truth to which Bidle had borne such brave wit- 
ness did not fall to the ground. Unitarian beliefs thus 
came to be widely held in both pulpit and pew in the Church 
of England, and that with little concealment; so that for a 
time it was felt that the struggle for freedom of belief in the 
Church was won. No one had done more to bring about 
this result than Thomas Firmin. 

The point has now been reached where we can begin to 
trace two fairly distinct streams of Unitarian thought, one 
in the Church of England, the other among the Dissenters, 
which at length united about the beginning of the nineteenth 
century in a separately organized Unitarian movement. 
We shall follow these two streams in the next two chapters. 


CHAPTER XXIX 


UNITARIANISM SPREADS IN THE CHURCH OF 
ENGLAND: THE TRINITARIAN CON- 
TROVERSY, 1687-1750 


As we have seen in the previous chapter, the work of Bidle 
for the spread of Unitarianism seemed for the most part 
to end with his life; for he left no organized movement, and 
no preacher long continued his public services. In fact, 
his writings, and those of one or two Unitarians in his pe- 
riod, though some of them called forth elaborate answers, 
appear to have made no particular impression on the gen- 
eral religious thought of England. All that he had said 
and written and suffered might yet have come to naught had 
it not been more and more reénforced by Socinian influences 
which kept coming over in a constant stream from Holland. 
The canon of the Church adopted in 1640 had forbidden all 


>1 and, while 


but the clergy to have or read Socinian books; 
it was never enforced even as regards the laity, the clergy 
would seem to have made full use of the leave thus allowed 
them. The Socinian books imported were mostly in Latin, 
and hence affected only scholars; but the result upon the 
clergy was that before the end of the seventeenth century 
large numbers of these, including some of the most influen- 
tial, had in one respect or another become decidedly influ- 
enced by Socinianism. 

Moreover, during the greater part of the seventeenth cen- 


1 See page 296. 
312 


TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY 313 


tury religious intercourse was very frequent between Eng- 
land and Holland. Many Englishmen went to Dutch 
universities to study, especially the Nonconformist candi- 
dates for the ministry, who were debarred from the English 
universities ; and they returned some of them outright Socin- 
lans, some Arians, some with the Arminian theology of the 
Remonstrants, and all of them more given to the use of 
reason in religion, and more tolerant in spirit. Whether 
they came back holding Socinian doctrines, or favoring a 
more reasonable interpretation of Christianity, which Socin- 
ians advocated, or merely mellowed by the Socinian spirit of 
religious toleration, they were likely sooner or later to be 
accused by their conservative brethren of being Socinians ; 
and in the controversies of the time the terms Arminian and 
Socinian were used as meaning much the same thing. 

The result of this influence is seen in some of those most 
eminent in the religious life of England in the seventeenth 
century. Archbishop Tillotson has already been men- 
tioned.t Chillingworth, the ablest reasoner in the Church 
of England, recognized reason as supreme, and long ob- 
jected to the Athanasian Creed. Richard Baxter, the 
greatest of the Nonconformists, held only the Ten Com- 
mandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Apostles’ Creed as 
essential, though both Socinians and Catholics could have 
met these conditions. Cromwell strongly upheld religious 
toleration, and the Independents in general favored it. 
Milton was at first an Arminian, but at his death he left a 
manuscript (On Christian Doctrine, not discovered and pub- 
lished until 1825, and afterwards reprinted in part by the 
Unitarians as a tract) which shows that he had become a 
Unitarian in belief; so did Sir Isaac Newton; so, for a time, 
was William Penn, who wrote a tract to show the Trinity’s 


1 See page 297. 


314 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Sandy Foundation Shaken, and was sent to the Tower for 
it; while the earlier teaching of the Society of Friends in 
general omits the doctrine of the Trinity. None of these 
ever joined a Unitarian movement—in fact, there was as yet 
none for them to join—but they were all more or less Socin- 
ian either in belief, in principle, or in spirit, and they were 
all reproached by the more orthodox as being Socinians 
unconfessed. 

Perhaps the most widespread of these various Socinian 
influences was shown in the direction of broad toleration of 
difference of opinion in religion, and in the tendency to 
reduce the essentials of Christianity to the very fewest and 
most important things—a tendency which presently came 
to be known as Latitudinarianism. Such a principle had 
already been urged in Bidle’s time, in an English transla- 
tion of Aconzio’s Stratagems of Satan,‘ which would have 
left the door of the Church so wide that men of all views 
might enter it. The Athanasian Creed, however, which 
they were bound to use in public worship thirteen times a 
year, kept the clergy constantly in mind of the doctrine of 
the Trinity, and of their obligation to believe it in its most 
extreme and objectionable form. Many who still believed 
in some sort of Trinity were far from sure they believed in 
all the statements of this Creed, and every use of it gave 
their consciences a twinge. Even Archbishop Tillotson 
said, “‘I wish we were well rid of it.” 

Hence a movement arose which found much favor, urging 
that conditions of membership in the Church be made much 
simpler. In 1675 Bishop Croft cautiously put forth, with- 
out his name, a book called The Naked Truth, urging that 
the Apostles’ Creed, which had sufficed for the early Church, 
ought to be the only confession of faith required now; that 


1 See page 293. 


TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY 315 


longer creeds do nothing but harm; and that it is far better 
to follow the simple teaching of the Scriptures than the 
philosophy of the Fathers. Although this book was at- 
tacked by several writers, its views were defended by several 
others, and its message spread. At length after the pas- 
sage of the Toleration Act in 1689, legalizing the worship of 
Dissenters, the king appointed a commission to revise the 
Book of Common Prayer. Liberal influences were strong, 
and it was proposed to omit the Athanasian Creed, or else 
to make the use of it optional, and to omit various objec- 
tionable phrases in the lturgy; but unfortunately all 
changes were defeated by the conservatives.’ 

On the doctrinal side Socinian influences from Holland 
gave rise to a yet greater controversy. The writings of 
Bidle, as we have seen, though attacked enough while he 
lived, appear not to have made any deep or general impres- 
sion, and after his death public controversy about the Trin- 
ity ceased. Even in 1685, when the Rev. George Bull (later 
Bishop Bull), who had himself been charged with being a 
Socinian, sought to clear himself from suspicion of heresy, 
and published his elaborate Defence of the Nicene Faith, he 
made no reference to English writers, but was aiming only 
at some Socinian writings from Holland which had made 
much impression in England. He sought to prove that even 
the early Fathers of the Church held the belief expressed in 
the Nicene Creed, though he admitted that they made Christ 


1A century later, however, when the Episcopal Church in America 
was revising the English Prayer Book for its own use, it adopted 
these changes, and omitted the Athanasian Creed. The Nicene Creed 
also was at first omitted, but later was restored, as otherwise no 
English bishop would consent to consecrate the American bishops. 
In the Episcopal Church of Ireland the Athanasian Creed may be 
used in public worship only by special permission, which has seldom 
been sought. 


316 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


subordinate to the Father, which was the main point for 
which the early Socinians had contended.t Moreover, 
he wrote in Latin, and hence reached only the learned. 
Soon afterwards, however, a very active discussion of both 
sides of the question arose within the Church of England 
itself, which aroused keen interest in a much larger public, 
and continued in one form or another for a full generation.” 

The Trinitarian Controversy, as this is commonly called, 
was started in 1687 by the publication of the Brief History 
of the Unitarians or Socinians? already referred to.* 
This tract gave an account of the Unitarians and their be- 
liefs from the early Church down, and refuted the proof- 
texts usually quoted by the Trinitarians in support of their 
doctrine, ending with the conclusion that those holding Uni- 
tarian views of the Trinity ought not to be prosecuted for 
them, but should be received in the Church as brethren. 
This tract was soon followed by another, Brief Notes on the 
Creed of St. Athanasius, which took up the Creed clause by 


clause, laid bare its contradictions with itself, reason, and 


1 See page 182. 

2 How serious this controversy was may be judged from the fact 
that it extended, in its widest compass, from 1687 to 1734, comprised 
more than 300 separate writings by not fewer than 100 known writers 
(including several bishops and archbishops), besides many others 
who wrote anonymously. The whole controversy divides up into some 
twenty different ones, ranging round some particular writing or some 
minor branch of the whole question at issue. 

3 Unitarians was the name preferred by Firmin and generally used 
by his associates who, although they were generally called Socinians 
by the orthodox, and did not deny that they agreed with the Socinians 
on many points, yet did not accept all the Socinian doctrines. By 
Unitarian they meant, at this period, one who holds the doctrine of 
the Trinity in some sense which does not imply belief in three Gods. 
The name was borrowed from Transylvania by way of Holland, and 
first appeared in English print in 1672-73. 

4See page 310. 


TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY 317 


Scripture, and concluded that it ought not to be retained 
in any Christian church. 

These tracts were widely read and made a great stir 
among both clergy and laity; and seeing the doctrine of the 
Trinity thus attacked, one bishop or doctor after another 
now came forward to defend it. Some maintained, against 
the charge that the doctrine was unreasonable or self- 
contradictory, that it ought to be reverently accepted on 
faith as a sacred mystery, above human comprehension; to 
which was replied that this was precisely the argument 
which Roman Catholics had urged in behalf of some of their 
own most objectionable doctrines, and which Protestants had 
steadily refused to admit as sound. Some sought to prove 
that the doctrine was supported by Scripture; but in this 
they were all too easily confuted by the Unitarian writers. 
Others, appealing to antiquity, tried to show that this had 
been the teaching of the Christian Church from the begin- 
ning; but the Unitarians, while not unwilling to admit that 
belief in some sort of Trinity was at least consistent with 
the Bible, and was supported by the early Fathers of the 
Church, insisted that it was far from being the kind of 
Trinity so carefully defined in the Athanasian Creed. The 
crucial question in the controversy was as to what is meant 
by one God in three persons. When the Unitarians urged 
that this belief by its own words contradicts itself, some 
tried to remove the difficulty by explaining that persons 
means just what we usually mean by the word; but the Uni- 
tarians replied that this involves belief in three separate 
Gods. Others sought to show that persons has here a 
special meaning, and simply means three different modes of 
being or acting; but it was replied that this was the an- 
cient heresy of Sabellianism,’ and that Christ means some- 


1See page 15, 


318 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


thing more than merely God’s mode of acting. So the 
controversy went on, with the Unitarians ever keen to detect 
any flaw in the reasoning of the orthodox, and ready to 
press every advantage against them. The controversy 
ended, the acute stage of it at least, when the authorities 
of the Church at least seemed to accept an explanation of 
the Trinity to which the Unitarians could assent with good 
conscience. 

This controversy was carried on in print by published 
tracts, sermons, or books. Any publication on one side 
was promptly answered by one or several on the other. 
The Unitarian contributions to it kept coming out every 
month or so for some ten years or more. The most 1m- 
portant of them were written by a clergyman of the Church 
of England, the Rev. Stephen Nye,’ who was a friend of 
Firmin’s. Firmin himself paid the cost of publication, and 
distributed them freely as a part of his plan to spread 
Unitarian views within the Church. The tracts seldom bore 
author’s or publisher’s name, for fear of prosecution, for 
the law did not tolerate deniers of the Trinity; and on one 
occasion in this period when one William Freeke ventured 
directly to attack the doctrine in a Brief and Clear Confuta- 
tion of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Parliament condemned 
the book (1693) to be burnt by the common hangman as 
an infamous and scandalous libel, and forced the author to 
recant and to pay a fine of £500. 

Although this controversy in its time aroused the Church 
of England to an intense pitch of interest, it would be te- 
dious enough to-day to have to read through it, or even to 
read very much about it. Only a few of its most important 
events need be mentioned here. Before the controversy had 
fairly got under way a great stir arose in the very center 


1 See page 310. 


TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY 319 


of churchmanship at the University of Oxford, where a book 
appeared entitled The Naked Gospel,’ (1690). It bore no 
name, but it was ere long discovered to have been written by 
Dr. Arthur Bury, Rector of Exeter College. It held that 
to be a Christian means simply to have faith in Christ, and 
that to require assent to speculations about his nature or 
the Trinity not only is useless but has done much harm. 
A heated controversy ensued which ended in Dr. Bury’s book 
being burned as impious and heretical. At this juncture 
Professor John Wallis of Oxford, who had won distinction 
in mathematics as one of the founders of modern algebra, 
and was looking for new worlds to conquer, turned his at- 
tention to the hardest problem in theology. He thought 
the doctrine of the Trinity could be made clear by a simple 
illustration from mathematics. To believe in one Ged in 
three equal persons seemed to him as reasonable as to believe 
in a cube with three equal dimensions. The length, breadth, 
and height are equal; yet there are not three cubes but one 
cube; and if the word persons is objectionable, then say 
three somewhats. Dr. Wallis carried on his discussion un- 
der the form of letters to a friend, eight of them in all; 
but each letter exposed some fresh point for attack and 
brought forth a fresh Unitarian criticism, so that before 
he was done Wallis had been driven in his explanation of 
the doctrine from the orthodoxy of Athanasius to the heresy 
of Sabellius. 

The haughty Dr. William Sherlock, soon afterwards ap- 
pointed Dean of St. Paul’s, now came confidently forward 
as champion in A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity 
(1690), in which he undertook to demolish the arguments 
of the Unitarian writers and, by explaining away the con- 
tradictions and absurdities they had complained of, to make 


1 See page 310n. 


320 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the great mystery clear to the meanest understanding by 
an original explanation. He was well pleased with himself 
for having made the notion of a Trinity, as he thought, as 
simple as that of one God; for he held that Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit are three persons as distinct as Peter, 
James, and John. Pamphlets in answer came thick and 
fast. The Unitarians were quick to attack this new ex- 
planation of the Trinity, and to open all eyes to the fact 
that it was no better than tritheism; so that in the face of 
this new and greater danger their opponents for a time 
ceased to. attack them. Some of the orthodox defended 
Sherlock’s view, while others tried their hand at a better 
explanation. 

These disputes, it must be remembered, were all between 
members of the Church of England, and they so much dis- 
turbed its peace that one of the bishops was moved to make 
an earnest plea that the whole subject be dropped. Sher- 
lock, thinking he had won the day, refused to keep silence, 
but he soon found himself fiercely attacked from a new quar- 
ter as a dangerous heretic himself. Dr. Robert South, 
famous as a great preacher and a brilliant wit, heartily 
disliking Dr. Sherlock, and willing to see him humbled, pub- 
lished some Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock’s Book 
(1693), in which he riddled the Dean’s arguments, and re- 
peated the charge of tritheism. But in the explanation of 
the Trinity which he set up instead, both the Unitarians and 
Dr. Sherlock were quick to detect the opposite heresy of 
Sabellianism. Heated controversies ensued. Champions 
for both sides rushed into the fray with pamphlets or ser- 
mons, until at length the University of Oxford formally 
condemned the view held by Dr. Sherlock and his party as 
false, impious, and heretical; his friends fell away, and his 
opponents published an English translation of the life of 


TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY 321 


Valentino Gentile,’ put to death at Bern for tritheism, rec- 
ommending it on the title-page to Dr. Sherlock, with the 
implication that he deserved a like fate. To prevent a 
repetition of the scandal to the Church, the archbishop 
now got the king to issue directions for the clergy hence- 
forth to abstain from unaccustomed explanations of the 
Trinity. Thus the controversy was finally quieted. It had 
revealed the fact that in place of a single orthodox explana- 
tion of the Athanasian Creed, there were now at least six 
distinct explanations in the field, none of them orthodox, 
yet all held by men who remained undisturbed in high posi- 
tions in the Church. 

The result was on the whole pleasing to the Unitarians in 
the Church; for any explanation of the Trinity as meaning 
belief in three Gods, to which they had most objected, had 
now been clearly repudiated. Although they did not relish 
the terms used in Dr, South’s explanation, they had no mind 
to dispute further about mere words, feeling that they 
could in some sense honestly assent to the doctrine about 
as he had explained it. To show this, Firmin now had a 
new tract prepared (1697) to show The Agreement of the 
Unitarians with the Catholic Church and the Church of 
England in nearly all points, and concluded that their dif- 
ferences were well settled. However, to make sure that the 
view he had so striven for should not again be lost sight of, 
he proposed that distinct Unitarian congregations should 
now be gathered within the Church to emphasize the true 
unity of God in their worship, and to keep their members 
from explaining this again in the wrong way. Fuirmin died 
the following year, but this plan of his was perhaps tried 
for a time, since we read of Unitarian meetings with their 
own ministers being held in London not many years after. 

1See page 106-109. 


322 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Finally even Dr. Sherlock took back most of the things he 
had said, and came to a view which the Unitarians ap- 
proved. Some of the Unitarians still held out, and a tract 
was written to persuade them that they might now feel 
themselves orthodox enough for the Church; some who held 
orthodox views argued in another tract that they ought now 
to be admitted to communion; while against those that 
wished to have them treated as heretics the Unitarians ar- 
gued in a third tract that they believed practically the 
same as many whose orthodoxy was not questioned, in- 
deed, that by the standard of Scripture and the Apostles’ 
Creed they were the most orthodox of all. They seemed in 
fact to have grown heartily tired of the long controversy, 
and to have become willing to go part way in compromise 
in order to enjoy peace. Thus they became absorbed into 
the Church of England, and we hear no more of them or 
their movement. 

The Trinitarian controversy was over a matter of doc- 
trine. While it was still at its height a book appeared 
which brought the influence of Socinianism to bear in an- 
other way, by emphasizing again the importance of toler- 
ance in religion. This was The Reasonableness of Chris- 
tianity (1695), by John Locke. This famous philosopher, 
although he had read no Socinian books, had imbibed the 
Socinian spirit from liberal friends among the Remon- 
strants ® while he lived in Holland, and had already written 
epoch-making Letters on Toleration. In his new book he 
urged that any one admitting the messiahship of Jesus 
should be considered a Christian, no matter what he believed 
as to other doctrines. A torrent of abuse followed from 
orthodox writers, especially among the Dissenters, who 


1The Socinians of Poland had made a similar claim. See page 161. 
2See page 200. 


TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY 323 


were now much less liberal than the Church of England. 
Not only was Locke charged with being a Socinian in dis- 
guise, which he denied, but it was declared that such prin- 
ciples as his opened the way to all irreligion, and were a 
fertile cause of atheism. The book was in fact quite ahead 
of its time. Two years later a large work on The Blas- 
phemous Socinian Heresie was written by John Gailhard 
to urge Parliament to use all the rigors of the law against 
Socinians. It cited with approval a law lately passed by 
the Scottish Parliament, under which Thomas Aikenhead,! 
a student of but eighteen, had just been put to death 
(1697) for denying the Trinity—the last execution for 
heresy in Great Britain. 

The Dissenting ministers, growing reactionary, urged 
King William at the same time to shut the press against 
Unitarians, and the House of Commons urged him that all 
their publications be suppressed and their authors and pub- 
lishers fined. The consequence was that in 1698 there was 
passed the Blasphemy Act, providing among other things 
that any Christian convicted of denying the Trinity, etc., 
should be disqualified from holding any public office, and up- 
on a second offence should lose all civil rights forever, and 
be imprisoned for three years. This section of the act was 
not repealed until 1813. 

The Unitarians, who had been troubled about the proper 
explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity to which they 
were bound to subscribe, had now found elbow-room within 
the Church, and henceforth were little disturbed there. 
Still the Athanasian Creed would not down, nor would the 
scruples over having to use it in public worship. Hence 
it was not many years until new questions arose, mainly as 
to whether, or how, Christ was equal to God. Thus sprung 


1See page 294. 


324 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


up what is sometimes known as the Arian Movement. This 
began through the work of two clergymen of the Church 
of England, William Whiston and Samuel Clarke. Whis- 
ton had succeeded Sir Isaac Newton * as Professor of Math- 
ematics at the University of Cambridge. He was a man 
of great learning, sincere and outspoken to a fault, yet 
with his head full of eccentric notions. As a clergyman 
he was deeply interested in theological questions. Follow- 
ing up a hint from Clarke as to the Athanasian doctrine, 
he studied the origin of it, and by 1708 he became con- 
vinced by study of the early Fathers of the church that 
they were semi-Arian,” and that he must follow them. He 
held that though Christ was God, and existed before the 
world was made, supreme worship should be given only to 
the Father; and he set himself to restore in the Church 
the belief and worship of primitive Christianity. For two 
years by his writings and sermons he carried on an active 
propaganda for his view. He omitted from the liturgy 
such parts as did not suit his beliefs, and proposed that the 
Prayer Book be purified of Athanasian expressions. All 
this roused intense opposition; and the university, which 
did not wish to repeat Oxford’s unhappy experience of a 
few years before,? promptly expelled him (1710). He 
finally withdrew from the church and joined the General 
Baptists; * but to the end of his long life he never ceased 
to proclaim his views, and to believe that through the or- 


1 Newton himself had already (1690) come to disbelieve the authority 
of the two strongest proof-texts for the doctrine of the Trinity; vat 
shrinking from being drawn into controversy he would not let his views 
be published while he lived. Whiston is now best remembered for his 
translation of Josephus. 

2 See page 21. 

3 See page 319. 

4See page 338, n. 


TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY 325 


ganization of societies, composed of Christians of all denom- 
inations, for promoting primitive Christianity, they would 
at length be brought to prevail. 

Whiston’s eccentricities and his early expulsion from the 
Church kept him from having the influence he might other- 
wise have had, so that the real leadership of the Arian 
movement soon fell to Dr. Clarke. He was already the 
most distinguished theologian of his time, and was admir- 
ingly spoken of as “the great Dr. Clarke”; and it was 
taken for granted that he might have any advancement in 
the church, and would in time become an archbishop. He 
had already suggested to Whiston that the early Fathers 
were not Athanasian in belief, and soon after Whiston’s 
expulsion he undertook to investigate carefully the teach- 
ing of Scripture on the subject. In 1712 he published a 
book on The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, in which 
he brought together every text in the New Testament hav- 
ing the least bearing on the subject, some 1,250 of them in 
all, classified according to their teaching. From these he 
drew the conclusion that the Scripture doctrine is that the 
Father alone is the supreme God to whom supreme worship 
may be paid, and that Christ is subordinate to him, and is 
to be worshiped only as a mediator; and he intimated that 
the Prayer Book ought to be revised so as to correspond 
to this doctrine.’ Half a score of opponents were soon in 
the field with tracts or books against him. Though he 
distinctly disowned the doctrine of Arius, it was charged 


2 


that he was advocating sheer Arianism.” A great hue and 


1 He later drew up a scheme of revisions in the Prayer Book, which 
were adopted late in the century by Lindsey’s Unitarian church in 
London, and by King’s Chapel in Boston, as we shall see hereafter. 
See page 351. 

2The so-called Arianism of Whiston, Clarke, and others of their 
time differed in several important respects from that of the fourth 


326 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


cry was raised in the Church, and the matter was brought 
before the church authorities. Clarke weakened somewhat 
and made a semi-retraction, so that no further action against 
him was taken; but he remained under a cloud of disapproval 
for the rest of his life. 

Nevertheless Dr. Clarke’s book made a deep impression on 
the minds and consciences of many of the clergy. They 
realized that whenever they subscribed to the Articles of 
Religion, as they were required to do when they were or- 
dained or were advanced to higher position in the Church, 
they must subscribe to what they did not wholly believe; 
and that whenever they conducted worship in church they 
must use expressions in the Prayer Book which they could no 
longer regard as ‘true. Hence some of them, including Dr. 
Clarke himself, declined further advancement where sub- 
scription was required; while many, knowing that their 
bishops more or less sympathized with them, altered the 
words of the liturgy, and were not disturbed for it although 
it was contrary to law and to the promises they had made. 
Clarke himself had said in his book that “every person may 
reasonably agree to such forms, whenever he can in any 
sense at all reconcile them with Scripture.” In other words, 
one might put upon them any sense he pleased. Many 
adopted this principle and subscribed with large mental 
reservations, defending this practice as right, and it has con- 
tinued more or less down to the present day. 

The Athanasian Creed had by now become a topic of 
general conversation, and a vigorous controversy therefore 
century (see page 17), especially since they did not regard Christ 
as a created being. But in theological controversy it has been the 
custom to prejudice the case of an opponent by giving him whenever 
possible the name of a discredited heresy, whether really deserved or 


not. At the present time (1925) in political controversy the name 
Bolshevik is freely applied in the same way. 


TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY 327 


arose over this “Arian subscription,” as it was called; in 
which Dr. Waterland very ably argued against Clarke and 
his followers that when one has subscribed he is morally 
bound to stick to the usual sense of the words as intended 
by the Church; and moreover, that the doctrine of the 
Trinity is of such supreme importance that it ought not to 
be held in any lax sense. But a much more serious danger 
was now threatening the Church, involving not merely one 
article of doctrine but, as it was felt, the very foundations 
of the Christian religion. Doctrinal controversies now 
faded away before that with Deism, and for half a century 
we hear little more of them. Thus the second attempt to 
reform the doctrine of the Church of England so as to make 
it more nearly like that of the Bible, came to nothing; and 
for the second time those who had desired a reform finally 
settled back comfortably and did nothing, content enough 
to be let alone as they were. We shall presently see how the 
inevitable question again came up in the time of Theophilus 
Lindsey,’ and led to the organization of the first permanent 
Unitarian church in England. Meanwhile the scene shifts 
from the Church of England to the Dissenting churches, 
where the views of Clarke had a far wider and deeper in- 
fluence, and led to more permanent results. 


1See chapter xxxi. 


CHAPTER XXX 


UNITARIANISM SPREADS AMONG THE DIS- 
SENTING CHURCHES: THE ARIAN 
MOVEMENT, 1703-1750 


The controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
the spread of Unitarian explanations of it, described in 
the last chapter, were wholly within the Church of England. 
At about the time that movement was dying out in the 
Church a similar one was beginning to arise among the 
Dissenting churches. As briefly told in an earlier chapter, 
ever since the time of Queen Elizabeth there had been many 
in England who did not feel that the reformation of the 
church had been carried far enough; and as they refused to 
conform to the appointed forms and rites of the Established 
Church they came to be known as Nonconformists. Some of 
these withdrew from the Church as early as 1616, and 
became known as Independents. Others, forming the Puri- 
tan party in the Church, came at length to be known as 
_ Presbyterians. During the Commonwealth the Nonconform- 
ists were in the majority, had control of the government, and 
had things their own way; but when the Episcopal Church 
was reéstablished under Charles II, an Act of Uniformity 
was passed (1662), forbidding any public worship except 
that prescribed by the Church of England. 

Any minister refusing to conform was required to give 
up his pulpit and his living. It was a tragic decision that 


they were required to make. It was to involve poverty, 
328 


THE ARIAN MOVEMENT 329 


homelessness, fines, imprisonment, and even death, for 
many. The Nonconformists did not complain of the doc- 
trines required; but they conscientiously objected to using 
certain forms which seemed to them Catholic superstitions, 
and to being re-ordained by bishops. The temptation to 
conform was almost irresistible ; yet it was resisted by about 
2,500 of the ‘ablest, most learned, and most godly ministers 
of England, who with great regret left the Church forever. 
“But we must live,” said one whose conscience was weak, 
and who shrank from poverty, and was about to give in. 
“But we must die,” replied the other, remembering the ac~ 
count he must give to God for an undefiled conscience. 
The “Nonconformist conscience” became henceforth a fixed 
element in the moral life of England. The Act of Uni- 
formity was reénforced by several others which made it 
unlawful for a Nonconformist to hold any municipal or gov- 
ernment office, and forbade ministers to hold meetings or to 
come within five miles of their old churches.t Under these 
acts 60,000 are said to have suffered punishment within 
the twenty-seven years durmg which the Act of Uni- 
formity was enforced against them; property was taken 
away to the value of £2,000,000; and 8,000 are said to have 
died in prisons. Despite all this the Nonconformists 
largely increased in numbers, and won great respect from 
the church authorities. It was out of these conscientious 
and heroic Nonconformists that the first Unitarian churches 
in England were almost entirely made up. 

When the Revolution came and William and Mary 
ascended the throne in 1688, one of the first steps taken 
was to pass the Toleration Act (1689), making the worship 
of Dissenters (as the Nonconformists now came generally 


1 Respectively, the Corporation Act, the Test Act, the Conventicle 
Act, and the Five Mile Act. 


330 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


to be called) lawful. An effort was also made to change 
the forms and rules of the Church to which they objected, 
so that they might all be included in its membership, and 
that England might have one great, broad church which 
should include practically all Protestants. High Church- 


> and 


men bitterly opposed this “scheme of comprehension,’ 
even the Dissenters had misgivings about it. The plan 
fell through, and henceforth Protestant England was to be 
permanently divided into two great bodies. Under the 
Toleration Act the Dissenting congregations grew and 
flourished as never before; for nearly a generation of bitter 
persecution had only strengthened them and united them 
firmly together. They now built meeting-houses all over 
the land and worshiped openly, and by the end of the century 
they counted two million members, the most numerous and 
wealthy body of Christians in the kingdom. 

The Dissenters were of three different denominations: the 
Presbyterians and the Independents of whom we have al- 
ready spoken, and the Baptists who had succeeded the 
earlier Anabaptists. Besides these there were the Quakers, 
who kept steadily aloof from the rest, and were cordially 
hated by them. Of all these the Presbyterians, now at the 
height of their power, were about two-thirds. They had 
gradually grown more tolerant, and their Calvinism had 
lost its edge. The Independents were generally stricter in 
their views and narrower in their spirit. Still the two 
bodies were much alike, and differed more in name than in 
fact. Neither was so broad as the Church of England; 
but the Baptists were on the whole the most liberal of the 
three. 

There was for a time some prospect that Dissenters gen- 
erally might unite into one comprehensive Dissenting body 
over against the Church of England. In 1690 over eighty 


THE ARIAN MOVEMENT 331 


of the Presbyterian and Independent ministers in London 
drew up a plan of union, and some years later the Baptists 
joined them. They were known as the United Protestant 
Dissenters; but they did not long hold together. A doc- 
trinal controversy soon arose, and within four years they 
had drifted hopelessly apart again into separate denomina- 
tions. The point of difference was between extreme and 
moderate Calvinism. As to the Trinity they were all still 
orthodox; though already it might be foreseen that the 
Presbyterians would in the end take the side of liberty. 
After sketching this background we are now prepared to 
fill in the details of the development. 

The first minister among the Dissenters to attract at- 
tention for his disbelief in the Trinity was Thomas Emlyn. 
He was born the year after Bidle’s death; and though his 
parents attended the Church of England, they leaned to- 
ward the Puritan party and had him educated for the minis- 
try at a Dissenting academy. Conscience forbade him to 
conform to the Established Church, hence, after a few years 
he became minister of a small Presbyterian congregation at 
Lowestoft. Here he formed a friendship with a neighboring 
Congregational minister; and as it was at the period of the 
Trinitarian Controversy, they read and discussed together 
Sherlock’s Vindication’? of the doctrine. The result was 
that Emlyn became an Arian and his friend a Socinian. 
Soon afterwards he was called to Dublin as joint minister of 
a large Presbyterian church, which he served acceptably for 
eleven years. He was somewhat ill at ease over his doctrinal 
views, but he kept them to himself, and confined himself to 
practical preaching. One of his congregation, noting at 
length that Emlyn never preached about the Trinity, began 
to scent heresy. He took it upon him to ask Emlyn what 


1See page 319. 


332 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


he believed, whereupon the latter gave an open and honest 
answer, and said he was willing to resign if it were desired. 
The matter was laid before the congregation, and conference 
was had with the other ministers of the city. They decided 
that he should withdraw for a time. 

The church was unwilling to accept Emlyn’s resignation, 
but gave him leave of absence, and he went to London. In 
his absence he was violently attacked from the other pul- 
pits, and on his return he felt bound to set forth and defend 
his views in dn Humble Inquiry into the Scripture-Account 
of Jesus Christ} (1702). His position was much like that 
of Clarke: that God is supreme, so that Christ has only an 
inferior deity and deserves only inferior worship.” 

Emlyn had intended to return at once to England; but 
before he could do so he was prosecuted at the instance of 
a zealous Baptist deacon, and tried for having in his book 
uttered an infamous and scandalous libel against Christ. 
His trial was carried on with great unfairness and prejudice, 
and resulted in conviction (1703). Refusing to retract he 
was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of 
£1,000, and was reminded that he was fortunate not to have 
been tried in Spain, where he would have been sent to the 
stake. Unable to pay his exorbitant fine, he lay in prison 
over two years, neglected of his former friends, and visited 
by but one of his brother ministers; but he occupied himself 
in writing, and in preaching on Sundays to his fellow- 


1This work was reprinted at Boston, 1756, the sole Unitarian work 
by any European writer to be reprinted in America before the rise 
of Unitarianism there. 

2He described himself as ‘a true scriptural Trinitarian,” but ac- 
cepted the name Unitarian in the sense then current (see p. 316, note 3) 
and wrote 4d Vindication of the Worship of the Lord Jesus Christ on 
Unitarian Principles (1706). He was really Arian in much the same 
sense as Whiston and Clarke and their followers (see p. 324, 325). 


THE ARIAN MOVEMENT 333 


prisoners. His fine was at length reduced to £70, besides 
£20 more which fell to the Bishop of Armagh under the law. 

Emlyn was set free in 1705 and soon went to London, 
where he spent the rest of his life. He gathered a Dissent- 
ing congregation there, and for a number of years preached 
to them in Cutlers’ Hall without pay. Some of the orthodox 
complained of him, and urged that he be again brought to 
trial, but no action was taken, and at length his congre- 
gation scattered. He received much sympathy in London, 
and was held in high honor by many both ain the Church 
and among the Dissenters as one that had suffered more than 
any other man of his time for freedom of conscience. Whis- 
ton and Clarke gave him their friendship, and he was inti- 
mate with them from the beginning of the Arian movement; 
but except two Baptist ministers no one was brave enough to 
invite him to preach in his pulpit. With his pen he entered 
actively into the controversy still raging over the Trinity, 
and his writings did much to interest Dissenters in the sub- 
ject, and even before Whiston and Clarke to prepare them 
for. the Arian point of view which was soon to spread so 
widely among them. In the cause of religious freedom he 
had yet greater influence, as people of all parties reacted in 
disgust from the religious narrowness and the persecuting 
spirit shown in his trial. He was the last Dissenter to 
suffer imprisonment for blasphemy under the English law. 
Time brought its vindication. Twenty-five years after 
Emlyn’s release from prison, his old congregation, which had 
fallen off from the day he left it, called a minister who in- 
clined strongly to religious freedom, and who later became 
a leader of the Arian movement in the north of Ireland; 1} 
within a half century it had itself become Arian, and at 
length it came fully into the Unitarian movement. 


1 See pages 339-341. 


334 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


The controversy in the Church of England over the ex- 
planation of the persons in the Trinity had made little 
impression on the Dissenters, and indeed only one or two 
of them had taken part in it; for the Athanasian Creed 
which kept the subject constantly before the minds of Con- 
formists was not used in the Dissenters’ worship. But the 
question of whether and how Christ was God, and what 
kind of worship should-be paid to him, interested them 
deeply. This had been Emlyn’s question, but it was brought 
most forcibly to their attention by the writings of Whiston 
and Clarke; and the so-called Arian movement which they 
led had much less influence in their own Church of England 
than among the Dissenters, by whom Clarke was widely read. 
It was therefore in their quarter that the next long step 
was to be taken toward Unitarianism, as we shall now see. 

The leaders of the movement were ministers who had 
become liberal while preparing for the ministry. They had 
not been able to attend the English universities, for students 
in those were required to be members of the Church of 
England or to subscribe its Articles, which as Dissenters 
they could not do. Hence some of them went to Dutch 
universities to study, and there they were bound to come 
under the influence of teachers and fellow-students leavened 
with Socinian thought. Others attended Dissenting acad- 
emies in England; for after the Nonconforming clergy had 
been ejected from their parishes in 1662 many of them 
turned to teaching; and some of the academies that thus 
grew up were in general subjects almost equal, and in 
theological and biblical teaching quite superior, to the 
universities, which were then at a low ebb. The academies 
especially insisted on free investigation of the Scriptures 
and on the use of reason, while they paid much less respect 


THE ARIAN MOVEMENT 335 


to the authority of the creeds. It is little wonder, then, that 
many of them became seed-beds for something like Arianism. 

Besides Emlyn’s case in Ireland, there were a few other 
outbreaks of Arianism in England which attracted a little 
attention, and it was suspected that Arianism was secretly 
gaining ground to a considerable degree. It was at Exeter, 
however, that it was first recognized as a serious danger. 
The Dissenters had long been strong here, where they had 
several Presbyterian congregations jointly managed by a 
single committee. Three of the four ministers were liberal. 
The senior minister, who had studied in Holland, conducted 
an academy which had the seeds of heresy in it, for one 
of its students was a secret correspondent of Whiston’s. 
Another of the ministers, James Peirce, who had also studied 
in Holland, and had won high standing as a champion of 
the Dissenters, had long been a friend of Whiston, and had 
accepted Clarke’s view of the Trinity before settling at 
Exeter. Like Emlyn, he kept his opinions to himself, and 
preached only on practical subjects. After Peirce had 
preached at Exeter some years, a rumor got afloat that he 
and others were not sound on the Trinity, and he was asked 
to declare his belief. Though he protested that he was not 
an Arian, the beliefs he expressed were not satisfactory to 
the Exeter Assembly of Ministers. A violent controversy 
ensued. The attempt was made to compel subscription of 
the ministers to an orthodox statement about the Trinity. 
Peirce and several others refused to subscribe, holding that 
the ministers had no authority over one another’s private 
opinions. At a loss what step to take next, the Assembly 
appealed to the Dissenting ministers of London for advice, 
and these met to consider the matter, as we shall soon see; 
but before their answer was received, the committee locked 


336 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Peirce and his colleague out of their pulpits and refused to 
let them preach further, and similar action was taken in 
several other churches of the region. 

The two excluded ministers then formed a new church of 
their own,! 
meeting-house. Peirce, embittered by this experience, and 


broken in health, died a few years later,” but his church 


with a large congregation, and soon built a 


went on. ‘So did the cause he had espoused, beyond all 
expectation, stimulated rather than hindered by what had 
happened. Within a generation a known Arian was called 
to the pulpit from which Peirce had been excluded for 
Arianism; he in turn was succeeded by a decided Unitarian ; 
and in 1810 Peirce’s church was reunited with the other. 
Many of the other churches in Devonshire moved fast and 
far in the same direction, and well before the end of the 
century Unitarianism was so far in the ascendant that even 
Arians were looked down on as idolaters for their worship 
of Christ. 

What took place thus in the west of England is only 
an example of a similar movement among the Presbyterian 
and other churches of the rest of England, Wales, and 
Ireland, in the middle half of the eighteenth century. The 
movement was stimulated by the Exeter controversy. When 
the Exeter ministers appealed for advice to the Dissenting 
ministers of the three denominations in London, the latter 
met in assembly at Salters’ Hall? in 1719, to the number 

1 This church, founded in 1717, may be called the earliest antitrini- 
tarian church in England which has continued its existence down to 
the present day. 

2 Emlyn was called to succeed him, but was now grown too infirm 
to accept. 

3 After the passage of the Toleration Act over a score of the Dis- 
senting congregations in London, instead of building new meeting- 


houses, for a time used for worship the handsome halls of old London 
guilds, whose members were almost entirely from among the Dissenters. 


THE ARIAN MOVEMENT 337 


of a hundred and fifty. The question laid before them was 
whether the holding of Arian opinions by a minister was 
sufficient reason for withdrawing fellowship from him. As 
to the main question, there was general agreement; but 
one of the conservative ministers proposed that before a 
vote were taken on this question all present should first 
prove their orthodoxy by subscribing to the doctrine of the 
Trinity. Doubtless not a few of the ministers, under the 
influence of Emlyn and Clarke, had already come seriously to 
waver as to this doctrine, while yet others did not feel 
sure as to the future. At all events, the motion was met 
by determined opposition, and was lost by a small majority. 

The important thing is that the debate over this ques- 
tion led to a permanent split between the progressive and 
the conservative elements among the Dissenters, not over 
doctrine, but over the principle of freedom in religion. At 
Salters’ Hall in the main Presbyterians were strong against 
subscription, Independents strong for it, and Baptists about 
evenly divided; although in each of the denominations there 
were both orthodox believers and Arians in both camps. 
From this time forth for a generation the most burning 
question among Dissenters was the question as to sub- 
scription or non-subscription of creeds, which had _ first 
been raised at Exeter; the one party maintaining that 
ministers ought to be required to subscribe confessions of 
faith, the other that they ought to be left free. The 
controversy was long and heated, but the result was that 
within the next generation the ministers and congregations 
favoring subscription remained orthodox, and either con- 
formed to the Church of England or else went over to the 


Salters’ Hall was one of these, used as a Presbyterian church. This 
assembly is often spoken of as the Salters’ Hall synod, but it was 
not properly a synod, for it did not represent any organization of 
churches, and it had no authority over either churches or ministers, 


338 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Independents; while the non-subscribers of the three de- 
nominations gravitated toward the Presbyterian side and 
became steadily more liberal. 

With required subscription to creeds now out of the way, 
there was little to control the Presbyterian munisters. 
Doctrinal changes went on rapidly among them, and their 
people followed them. Doctrines of the creeds found not to 
be in the Scriptures were first neglected, then soon disbe- 
lieved and forgotten. Disuse of the Westminster Catechism 
gradually became general. All through the middle of the 
century Arian views spread rapidly and widely; and these 
in their turn led to Unitarian views. In less than two gen- 
erations from the Salters’ Hall controversy practically all 
the churches that still kept the Presbyterian name had aban- 
doned the Trinitarian faith; and from this source came 
nearly all the oldest churches which later organized together 
in the English Unitarian movement of the nineteenth century. 
In the second half of the eighteenth century these liberal 
Presbyterian churches far outstripped the rest of the Dis- 
senters in the ability and scholarship of their ministers, in 
the culture, wealth, and social influence of their members, 
and in public life and public service; but they were not 
effectively organized, and they made little new growth in 
numbers or strength. 

Another liberal drift, very similar to that among the 
Presbyterians, was going on independently at about the same 
time among the General Baptists.t_ A generation before the 
case of Peirce at Exeter an attempt, several times repeated, 
had been made to exclude from Baptist fellowship a min- 


1The Baptists, who had come together into an organized denomina- 
tion in England early in the seventeenth century, had split up in 
1633 into Particular Baptists, who were the smaller sect and strict 
Calvinists, and General Baptists, who were more numerous and more 
liberal in spirit and progressive in doctrine. 


THE ARIAN MOVEMENT 339 


ister whose views were more or less Unitarian. Though the 
Assembly disapproved his views, they refused to exclude 
him, thus declaring for liberty of belief. The orthodox 
minority thereupon seceded for a time; but the denomination 
steadily grew more liberal in belief, and most of its churches, 
like the Presbyterians and not a few of the liberal Inde- 
pendents, eventually joined the Unitarian movement. 

The discussion begun at Salters’ Hall was not long in 
spreading to the Presbyterians in Wales and Ireland. In 
Wales Calvinism had begun to decay early in the eighteenth 
century, giving way first to Arminian and then to Arian 
views. The movement, as had been the case in England, 
was stimulated by a Dissenting academy at Carmarthen, 
which was now supported largely by Presbyterian funds 
from London. Before the middle of the century many of 
its students, doubtless influenced by the writings of Emlyn 
and Clarke, had become Arian, and from that time on their 
views rapidly spread. As in England, nearly all the old 
Presbyterian as well as several General Baptist congrega- 
tions gave up their belief in the Trinity; and as Arianism 
faded away Unitarianism succeeded it, and many new 
churches of that faith were founded. In Cardiganshire 
they were so numerous that the orthodox gave vent to their 
feelings over the situation by naming that region “the 
black spot.” The number of Welsh Unitarian congrega- 
tions to-day is between thirty and forty. 

In Scotland liberal influences were felt at the universities, 
and spread thence into Ireland, whence many young men had 
come to study for the ministry; but though there were for 
a time several sporadic movements toward the end of the 
century, Unitarianism in any form did not take firm root 
until well on in the nineteenth century. | 

In the north of Ireland Presbyterianism had been organ- 


340 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


ized among the inhabitants of Scotch origin (the Scotch- 
Irish) in 1642, and subscription to creeds had never been re- 
quired. But after Emlyn’s trial, and while he was still in 
prison, in order to guard against the spread of his beliefs in 
northern Ireland, it was voted in 1705, in face of strong op- 
position, to require subscription to the Westminster Confes- 
sion from all ministers seeking ordination. The Rev. John 
Abernethy, who had just declined a call to succeed Emlyn at 
the Dublin church, now settled at Antrim, and soon gathered 
about him an association of ministers. Meeting together 
during some years they came to agree in opposing sub- 
scription, and to take open ground against it. In the con- 
troversy that followed for six or seven years they were 
named the “New Lights,” and this name clung to the Irish 
and Scotch liberals for a full century.? Friction between 
them and the orthodox increased so much that in 1725 the 
synod set the non-subscribers apart into a Presbytery of 
Antrim by themselves, and the next year excluded them from 
the synod altogether, the ministers in the synod being nearly 
equally divided, but the elders strongly conservative. It 
was suspected that many of the non-subscribers were in- 
clined to Arianism; but the issue here was precisely what 
it had been at Salters’ Hall. 

This victory of the orthodox did little to stop the spread 
of heresy. Many of the ministers in the Synod of Ulster 
remained out of sympathy with required subscription, and 
the feeling against it steadily grew. In the course of the 
century the practice of subscribing gradually decayed or 
was evaded more and more even among the orthodox. Arian 


1In the very next year Calvin’s old church at Geneva took the op- 
posite step, and abolished subscription. 

2 Their influence was much felt in the Church of Scotland at the 
beginning of the nineteenth century. See Robert Burns’s “Kirk’s 
Alarm.” 


THE ARIAN MOVEMENT 341 


views spread correspondingly; and after the law against 
deniers of the Trinity was repealed in 1817, Unitarian doc- 
trines began to be preached openly. This at length roused 
the orthodox into action, and after a bitter controversy it 
was again voted in 1828 to insist upon subscription. The 
non-subscribers then withdrew and in 1830 formed a Re- 
monstrant synod, suffering considerable persecution in con- 
sequence. Presbyterian churches had always been very few 
in the south of Ireland, but a similar movement went on in 
the churches there. To anticipate here, and bring the story 
down to the present day, it may be added that in 1907 the 
various bodies of Unitarians in the north of Ireland united 
to form the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ire- 
land, which though Presbyterian in name and form of gov- 
ernment is Unitarian in belief, and is associated with the 
Unitarian churches of Great Britain. The number of con- 
gregations is about forty. 

We have now reached the point where in the third quarter 
of the eighteenth century a large number of the Dissenting 
ministers and churches of Great Britain and Ireland had 
become practically Unitarian. They were no longer bound 
to accept a particular creed, they had come to a generous 
tolerance of differences of belief, they had left the doctrine 
of the Trinity behind, and they were coming to accept the 
full humanity of Jesus. Still their movement in this direc- 
tion had been so slow and gradual that they hardly realized 
how far they had come, or whither they were bound. They 
were but a loosely connected group of churches, and they 
had taken no definite step to show just what they stood for; 
they were conscious of no common body of doctrine; they 
had no recognized leader or common rallying-point; and 
they had no clear vision or plan for the future. They were 
like a stream that has broadened out until it is likely to 


342 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


sink into the ground and be lost unless it can be led to- 
gether again into a well marked channel. In short, they 
needed a leader and a spokesman, and a name and a recog- 
nized cause to rally about. In the fullness of time these two 
needs were now to be supplied, in the persons of the two 
men of whom the next two chapters will speak. 


CHAPTER XXXI 


THE UNITARIAN REVOLT FROM THE CHURCH 
OF ENGLAND: THEOPHILUS LINDSEY 
ORGANIZES THE FIRST UNITARIAN 

CHURCH, 1750-1808 


In the last two chapters we have followed two separate 
streams of Unitarianism gathering volume, one in the Church 
of England, the other among the Dissenters. They were to 
a large degree independent of each other, for the Church 
and Dissent had, as they still have, little to do with each 
other. In this and the next chapter we are to find these 
two streams flowing together and making a channel of their 
own, which will issue in an organized Unitarian body. We 
have seen that the ministers in the Church of England who 
felt ill at ease using the Prayer Book or the Athanasian 
Creed most of them settled down at last into using these as 
they found them, but putting their own interpretations on 
them. After all, this sorely troubled the consciences of 
those who desired in religion above all things else to be and 
seem perfectly sincere, and for a generation or more they 
tried in various ways to get around a difficulty which they 
had been unable to remove. The Athanasian Creed was 
their worst stumbling-block. 

While the more timid kept their thoughts to themselves, 
others made no secret of them. Several altered the liturgy, 
and left it to the bishops to take action against them 


if they thought best. Some got the parish clerk to read 
343 


344 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


for them parts of the service which they were unwilling to 
read themselves. Some omitted the creed altogether, and 
suffered prosecution in the ecclesiastical courts for doing 
so; and when one of these was ordered to restore it to its 
place in the service, he put it to ridicule by having it sung 
to the tune of a popular hunting song. Yet another, when 
he came to the creed, said, “Brethren, this is the creed of 
St. Athanasius, and God forbid it should be the creed of 
any other man.” Several of the bishops themselves were 
unsound as to the Trinity, and sympathizing with these 
evasions did nothing to prevent them; but the situation was 
notorious, and did nothing to raise the liberal clergy in 
public respect.t_ Their behavior was in sad contrast to that 
of the 2,500 non-conforming clergy who in 1662 had given 
up all worldly prospects? for a similar principle of con- 
science. It seemed as though sensitive conscience had de- 
serted from the Church to Dissent. 

The liberal Dissenters took note of all this, and when the 
Bishop of Oxford complained of the low state of religion, 
one of them taking up the subject in a book reminded 
him ‘that among the causes of the prevalent skepticism 
his Lordship had forgotten that the clergy themselves 
solemnly subscribed to Articles they did not believe.’ Of 
all the clergy at this time only one, William Robertson 
of Ireland, ‘“‘the father of Unitarian Nonconformity,” fol- 
lowed his conscience so far as to abandon flattering pros- 
pects and, when well beyond middle life, at great cost to him- 
self to resign from the ministry (1764). 

Though the controversy following Dr. Clarke’s book had 


1A prominent clergyman who was in a position to know as well as 
any one, declared that not over a fifth of the clergy subscribed in the 
strict sense. 

2 See page 329. 


THEOPHILUS LINDSEY 345 
largely died out,’ all through the middle of the eighteenth 


century books or pamphlets kept appearing from time to 
time (almost always anonymously), urging that the terms 
of subscription should be relaxed, and thus preparing the 
way for a further move. For it must be remembered that 
all candidates for ordination or advancement in the ministry 
were required by law to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles 
of Religion and all things in the liturgy of the Church of 
England, and that similar tests were imposed on admis- 
sion or graduation at the universities. The feeling back 
of all these writings at length found its full expression in 
one of the most important books in the religious life of 
eighteenth century England, a book entitled The Confes- 
stonal, published anonymously (1766) by the Rey. Francis 
Blackburne, Archdeacon of Cleveland. 

The author was a sincere and earnest man, who spent 
nearly fifty years as rector of one parish, at Richmond in 
Yorkshire. It was only a few years after his ordination, 
that the book appeared which led Robertson to resign his 
charge and it roused grave questionings also in Blackburne’s 
mind, so that it was only after serious misgivings that he 
was persuaded to subscribe when he was made archdeacon 
the next year, and he never would subscribe again after 
that. He gradually grew bolder in his thought, sent his son 
to school at an Arian academy, and cultivated friendship 
with Dr. Priestley, who was now becoming a leader among the 
non-subscribing Dissenters. He printed one or two minor 
things on the subject so much on his mind, and petitioned 
the archbishop for reforms in the Church; but no visible 
notice was taken. He therefore began collecting materials 
for a convincing work on the subject. 

Blackburne was apparently the same sort of Arian as Dr. 


1See page 327. 


346 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Clarke; and in his book he discussed at length the history 
of subscription and the arguments for it, and argued power- 
fully that Protestant churches have no right to set up creeds 
composed by men, in place of the Word of God, as tests of 
the orthodoxy of ministers, and that subscription ought at 
once to be abolished as a mischievous stumbling-block. The 
book caused great excitement among the conservatives, who 
took the view that the Church could not serve its purpose, 
but would fall to pieces, unless all its members believed 
alike. The archbishop soon spied out the authorship of 
the book, and a controversy ensued which ran to a hun- 
dred pamphlets and books. Though there was great clamor 
against the book and its writer, it won many converts, and 
made a deep impression, and it led at length to an organized 
movement to get relief from subscription, which had the 
support of even one or two of the bishops. 

It was some years before the movement took definite shape ; 
but in 1771 Blackburne, who was recognized as the leader 
in the cause, was induced to draw up some proposals for an 
appeal to Parliament for relief from subscription to the 
liturgy and Articles, and these were widely circulated. In 
the face of much discouragement from those in high station, 
and of timid lukewarmness in others, a meeting was held 
at the Feathers’ Tavern in London, where a petition to 
Parliament was drawn up. Though this Feathers’ Tavern 
Petition, as it was called, was circulated for half a year, 
only about two hundred and fifty signatures could be ob- 
tained. Most of the clergy who sympathized with the 
petition dared not give it their support for fear of con- 
sequences to themselves. The Rev. William Paley, who 
afterwards became famous as a theologian, unblushingly said 
what others doubtless felt, when he declined to sign the 
petition because ‘he could not afford to keep a conscience.’ 


THEOPHILUS LINDSEY 347 


The petition was presented to Parliament early in 1772, and 
very ably supported by its friends, but as bitterly opposed 
not only by orthodox Churchmen, but by the Methodists as 
well. It was urged that it would destroy the Church and 
disturb the peace of the country; and after an eight hours’ 
debate Parliament by a majority of three to one refused 
to receive the petition. A similar attempt two years later 
met the same fate, as did also an attempt the same year to 
get the Articles and the liturgy revised through petition to 
the archbishop. 

So the movement died out, and those that had supported 
it slumped back and, even if they declined advancment and 
refused to sign the articles again, continued to say the creed 
and use the liturgy just as before, and kept on disbelieving 
them just as before.’ Of all that had signed the Feathers’ 
Tavern Petition, the most are so wholly forgotten that it 
is not easy even to discover their names. The only one 
that ever made any real mark on the religious thought of 
the time following was one Theophilus Lindsey, who now 
withdrew from the Church. We have next to follow the 


1The Feathers’ Tavern Petition was brought up in Parliament again 
in 1774 and decisively rejected, and the situation remained quite un- 
changed down to 1865, when the terms of subscription were altered so 
that now one must assent only to “the Articles” (instead of “all and 
every the Articles”) and the Book of Common Prayer, and believe the 
doctrine therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God. Some 
deem this an important change and a great relief to conscience; 
others see no great difference. In 1867 an effort was made to have 
the Athanasian Creed removed from the service of the Church. The 
High Churchmen opposed the movement, and threatened to leave the 
Church if any change were made. The creed is still retained, and 
must be used thirteen times a year, though evasion of the full re- 
quirement is often practiced, and as often winked at. In 1858 tests 
for matriculation for the bachelor’s degree were abolished at Oxford, 
and conditions had been relaxed at Cambridge two years before. All 
university tests were abolished by Gladstone’s government in 1871. 


348 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


story of his life, for he became the founder of the Unitarian 
Church in England. 

Theophilus Lindsey, the youngest son of a business man 
of Scotch origin, was born at Middlewich, Cheshire, in 1723. 
He showed good promise in boyhood, and thus attracted the 
attention of some ladies who provided for his education. In 
due time he went up to the University of Cambridge, where 
he was known for his high character and firm principles, was 
graduated with honors, and was made a Fellow. Flattering 
inducements were offered him to embrace the life of a 
scholar, but he deliberately chose the ministry as the call- 
ing where he could best serve God and do the most good 
to men. He was ordained minister in the Church of Eng- 
land, and soon became private chaplain in the family of a 
nobleman, and in this service he spent some years in travel 
on the continent. He then became minister of a modest 
parish in Yorkshire, near to Richmond, where he soon formed 
an intimate friendship with Archdeacon Blackburne, with 
whose views he had much in common. After three years 
he was persuaded by friends to accept a parish in Dorset- 
shire, where he proved a most faithful and devoted minister 
to the members of his flock. 

He stayed there seven years, giving himself much to the 
study of Scripture and its doctrines, and .in consequence 
came to entertain serious doubts as to the rightfulness of 
offering to Christ the worship which the liturgy required. 
He even thought seriously of resigning from his ministry al- 
together; but he was reluctant to abandon his chosen life 
work, and to take such an almost unprecedented step; and 
as he knew that many others who believed as he did re- 
mained in the Church, he made the usual excuses to himself, 
and managed for a time to quiet his conscience by explain- 
ing the doctrine of the Trinity in the way then common. 


THEOPHILUS LINDSEY 349 


Meantime he married the step-daughter of Blackburne; but 
though he was offered a place in Ireland which would no 
doubt soon have led him to a bishopric, he declined the honor, 
and instead chose to go where the scenes and the people were 
dear to them both. He accordingly returned to Yorkshire 
in 1763 and settled over the parish of Catterick. 

His new post gave him a smaller salary than the one he 
had left, but a greater opportunity of doing good; for there 
was a large number of poor people init. He took up his new 
work with such enthusiasm that people said he had turned 
Methodist. He and his wife spent much of their time, and 
all the spare means that a most self-denying life afforded, 
in trying to improve the condition of the poor, and sup- 
plying them with nursing, medicine, food, and books, and so 
trying to make them feel the practical influence of the 
Christian religion. He devoted himself especially to young 
people, and in 1763 established one of the first Sunday 
schools in England for religious instruction. 

Happy as he was in his work, however, one thing made 
Lindsey uneasy. He had been not a little troubled about 
subscribing the Articles when he settled at Catterick, and 
had determined that he would never subscribe again, but 
would stay there for the rest of his life. But he was far 
more troubled that whenever he used the Prayer Book he 
had to offer worship to Christ and the Holy Spirit, instead 
of to God alone as the Bible taught. While in this state of 
mind he had the fortune to spend several days at Black- 
burne’s house in the company of two non-subscribing Presby- 
terian ministers. One of these was Dr. Priestley, who had 
already become a convinced Unitarian, and was minister at 
Leeds, and was destined later to be recognized along with 
Lindsey as one of the two founders of the Unitarian Church 
in England. Lindsey told him how uneasy he felt, and that 


350 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


he had thoughts of resigning his charge. Priestley advised 
him to stay where he was, try to make the church broader, 
and alter the things in the Prayer Book which troubled him, 
waiting for the bishop to turn him out if he chose. But 
Lindsey remembered that he had solemnly promised to use 
the liturgy as it was, and whenever he remembered that 
Robertson had resigned for a similar reason, he felt re- 
proached of conscience.» He threw himself more deeply 
than ever into his work among the poor, and into the preach- 
ing of practical sermons, and made no secret of his views, 
but all to no purpose. 

It was at this time that the Feathers’ Tavern movement 
took place. ‘Though Lindsey had little expectation that 
anything would come of it, he grasped at it as one last 
straw, and went into the movement with great earnestness. 
Two thousand miles he traveled through snow and rain 
that winter trying to get signatures to the petition. He 
met with lukewarmness, timidity, even with abuse; but he 
got few signatures. Stimulated by the example of Robert- 
son, and of the ejected clergy of a century before, he de- 
termined that if the petition failed he would resign. It 
failed, as we have seen; and without waiting for the attempt 
to be renewed he prepared to take the critical step. He had 
first to see his parishioners through a severe epidemic of 
smallpox which afflicted many of them. Then he took 
Blackburne and other friends into his confidence, hardly one 
of whom but tried to dissuade him; but he was unshakable. 
At length, after preparing for publication a full and careful 
Apology for Resigning the Vicarage of Cattertck, he wrote 
a tender and affectionate Farewell Address to his people, 
preached his last sermon to them, and at the beginning of 
winter “went out, not knowing whither he went.” He had 
laid up nothing for a rainy day, having spent all his sur- 


THEOPHILUS LINDSEY 351 


plus on the poor of his parish; and after selling all but the 
most precious of his worldly possessions he had but £50 to 
face the world with, and an income of only £20 a year in 
sight. 

It will be hard for us to realize what it can have meant 
for a man of fifty, frail in health, thus to give up his com- 
fortable living and face a totally unknown future. Most of 
his former friends now fell away from him and treated him 
coldly, as either a traitor to religion or else a visionary 
fool. The Feathers’ Tavern petitioners protested that his 
resignation would ruin their cause. So strained became re- 
lations with Archdeacon Blackburne that for several years 
he refused to see the Lindseys. Hardly one of his friends 
offered him any help in his time of need, though one of her 
wealthy relations offered to provide for Mrs. Lindsey, if 
she would abandon her husband. Such a proposal she in- 
dignantly rejected, for she fully sympathized with him, and 
was ready without complaint to bear any sacrifices that 
might come. Outside the Church friends were kinder. One 
of them offered to recommend him to a very influential 
Dissenting congregation at Liverpool. Another offered 
him an opening to teach in a Dissenting academy. A third 
offered him a handsome salary as librarian. All these 
offers he declined because he had planned, if possible, to 
gather in London a congregation of others like himself (he 
was confident there must be a great many of them), who 
loved the worship of the Church of England, but wished to 
see important changes made in its liturgy. 

On his way up to London Lindsey visited several friends, 
and at the house of one of them he saw the alterations 
which Dr. Clarke had proposed in the liturgy.’ This gave 
him light, and he copied them that he might publish a re- 


1 See page 325 n. 


352 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


formed Prayer Book for the use of his new congregation. 
Arrived at London, Lindsey took humble lodgings in two 
scantily furnished rooms, where he soon fell into such want 
that the family plate had to be sold to pay for food and lodg- 
ing. On the other hand he enjoyed such peace from a good 
conscience as he had not known for years, and he began to 
draw up his reformed liturgy. Friends soon found him out, 
learned of his plan, and encouraged him in it. Unexpectedly 
few, indeed, from the Church of England; but there was Dr. 
Priestley, who was now a celebrated man and had influential 
connections, and Dr. Price also prominent among the liberal 
Dissenters. These and others helped to raise funds, a 
vacant auction-room in Essex Street was rented and fitted 
up for worship, and on April 17, 1774, was opened the 
Essex Street Chapel, the first place in England that came to 
anything, which was avowedly intended for the worship of 


2 


God on Unitarian principles.’ Firmin’s plan’ was at 


length realized in a way, although Lindsey was disappointed 
to find that very few adherents of his movement, and only 
one gift for it, came from members of the Church; nor 
did many follow his example in resigning from its ministry. 
About a dozen clergymen resigned within a few years, but 


1The earlier short-lived meetings of Bidle, Emlyn and others are not 
to be forgotten in this connection, nor is Peirce’s Arian movement at 
Exeter. It is true that not a few of the old Presbyterian congregations 
had before now outgrown their Arianism and become Unitarian in belief, 
but they were not yet so in name. Lindsey adopted the Unitarian doc- 
trine without reserve, and gave the word a new definition. By it he 
meant “that religious worship is to be addressed only to the One true 
God, the Father,” implying therefore the pure humanity of Jesus. The 
orthodox did not like to admit the right of Unitarians to appropriate 
the name, claiming that they too believed in the unity of God; and 
for a long time they insisted on naming the Unitarians Socinians. 
But the name chosen by Lindsey spread and has survived, and the 
other has passed out of use. 

2 See page 321. 


THEOPHILUS LINDSEY 353 


only two or three. of these took up the Unitarian min- 
istry, and only an occasional one has done so down to 
this day. 

Officers of the government were suspicious of the new 
chapel, and there was delay in getting it legally registered 
as a place of worship. Not only was it still against the 
law to deny the Trinity, but political radicalism was feared, 
and for several Sundays an agent of the government was 
present to report whether the law were violated. He found 
nothing to complain of. Lindsey declared his intention not 
to engage in religious controversy; and the worship was 
much like that of the Church of England, save that the 
minister wore no surplice, and that the revised Prayer 
Book made many doctrinal omissions and some other 
changes. At the first service about two hundred were pres- 
ent, including one lord, several clergy of the Church of 
England, Dr. Priestley, and Dr. Benjamin Franklin, who 
was then in London in the interest of the American colonies, 
and was a regular attendant until he returned home. The 
congregations grew, and in them were found members of 
the nobility, members of Parliament, men prominent in 
public life, well-known scientists, and people of wealth who 
were generous to the cause. In fact, malicious tongues set 
afloat the rumor that Lindsey had resigned from Catterick 
with pecuniary ends in view! The chapel became too small 
to hold those that came, so that after four years the 
premises were bought and a new chapel and minister’s 
dwelling were built.’ 

From now on all went smoothly. As his work grew and 
his age increased, Lindsey sought a colleague. It was some 

1The Essex Street congregation worshiped here until 1886, when 
they removed to a more suitable location in Kensington. Since then 


Essex Hall has been headquarters for organized Unitarianism in 
England. 


354 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


years before one could be found; but in 1783 Dr. Disney, 
who had married another daughter of Archdeacon Black- 
burne, and had also been one of the Feathers’ Tavern As- 
sociation, withdrew from the Church and came to assist 
Lindsey at Essex Street Chapel. Lindsey had already pub- 
lished several writings since coming to London; for he had 
found himself forced to break his original resolution as to 
religious controversy, and to answer attacks and argue in 
defense of the beliefs he held. Now that he had a colleague 
he gave himself more than ever to writing. One of the most 
important of his later works was his Historical View of 
Unitarianism (1783), which helped his followers to realize 
that instead of being a new and insignificant sect, they were 
part of a movement nearly as old as Protestantism, which 
had had distinguished adherents in half a dozen countries for 
two centuries and a half. He also wrote a defense of his 
dear friend, Dr. Priestley, who was now being bitterly at- 
tacked, as well as two books on the true belief about Christ, 
the prevalent worship of whom he boldly attacked as no 
better than “Christian idolatry.” He steadily grew clearer 
and firmer in his departure from orthodoxy, not a little in- 
fluenced in this by the fearless attitude of Dr. Priestley. At 
seventy, though still in full vigor, he realized that his public 
work must be nearly done, and therefore resigned his pulpit, 
which he would never consent to enter again. 

Lindsey lived fifteen years after his retirement, in a serene 
and very happy old age. He published one more book, 
showing his deep faith in the universal goodness of God, 
and was always ready with his counsel and with material aid 
for the cause he loved. He was a moving spirit in the first 
two societies which were the beginning of organized Unita- 
rianism in England, and before he died he had the happiness 
of knowing that his views had spread widely in the British 


THEOPHILUS LINDSEY 355 


Isles and in France, and that the oldest Episcopal church 
in New England (King’s Chapel, Boston) had followed his 
example and revised its Prayer Book after the pattern of 
Dr. Clarke. 

Lindsey was not a popular preacher who drew great 
crowds, but his sincerity and earnestness, his rare strength 
of character, and his unselfishness deeply impressed those 
that knew him. Though he lived at a period when they were 
uppermost in most minds, he would not discuss political 
questions in his pulpit; but outside it he took an active 
part in working for broader civil and religious liberty, 
and against slavery. Like his friends, Dr. Priestley and 
Dr. Price,’ he was very liberal in politics, and warmly 
sympathized with the American colonies (as did the Dis- 
senters almost universally), and with the French Revolution 
in its early days as an uprising against despotic tyranny. 
His influence on the development of the Unitarian movement, 
though much more quict than Priestley’s, was very great. 
As we have seen, it did not much affect the Church of Eng- 
land, and in this his hopes were disappointed; for those 
who should have followed his example preferred, when the 
pinch came, to stay where they were, whatever it might cost 
them in twinges of conscience. But to some of the liberal 
Dissenters, who had gradually drifted into Unitarian views 
without ever having confessed the Unitarian name, and who 
thus occupied an equivocal position, his bold, uncompromis- 
ing, and successful example gave the courage of their con- 
victions. Encouraged also by the advice of their acknowl- 
edged leader, Priestley, they now began openly to adopt 


1Dr. Richard Price was, after Priestley, the most famous of the 
liberal Dissenters. He was a noted mathematician, and wrote impor- 
tant works on finance, politics, and philosophy, and on the war with 
America. His view of Christ was Arian and was strongly opposed 
by Dr. Priestley, but their friendship was of the warmest. 


356 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the Unitarian name, until not long after Lindsey’s death 
nearly a score of these churches could be numbered, and their 
organization into one body went steadily on. We must 
now turn to see how these churches were led in this definite 
direction by Priestley. 


CHAPTER XXXII 


THE LIBERAL DISSENTING CHURCHES BE- 
COME OPENLY UNITARIAN UNDER 
THE LEADERSHIP OF JOSEPH 
PRIESTLEY, 1750-1804 


We have seen in a previous chapter how the Presbyterian 
churches rapidly became liberal after the division at 
Salters’ Hall. The movement among them might be de- 
scribed as a “liberal drift,’ for it was not a concerted 
movement with either program or leaders. No one was 
particularly trying or wishing to form a new denomination, 
‘or to re-form an old one. ‘There were many able men among 
their ministers, but only two or three stand out above the 
rest for the influence they had in bringing about a change 
of beliefs. One of the earliest of these was Dr. John Taylor 
of Norwich, who in 1740 published a work on Original Sin 
which powerfully attacked the orthodox doctrine on that 
subject, and not only had great influence in England, but 
also did much to root out this doctrine in New England. 
Another was Dr. Richard Price’ one of the leading Dis- 
senting ministers in the London district, and a strong friend 
of the American colonies at the time of their Revolution, 
who helped undermine the orthodox beliefs by his printed 
sermons on the nature of Christ (1786), in which he strongly 
defended the Arian view. But by far the most influential of 


1 See note, page 355. 
357 


358 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


those that led the Presbyterians to acknowledge Unitarian 
beliefs was Joseph Priestley. 

Priestley was in many ways the polar opposite of 
Lindsey. He was an extreme Dissenter, while Lindsey was 
by temper a devoted Churchman. He was a clear-thinking 
rationalist, while Lindsey was a man of fervent spiritual 
religion. Priestley welcomed religious controversy as a 
way of clearing up the truth, while Lindsey shrank from 
it. Priestley devoted his spare time and thought to science, 
Lindsey gave his spare time and money to charity and work 
among the poor. Yet they were united in close bonds of 
rare friendship for over a generation. 

Joseph Priestley was born at a little village near Leeds in 
1778, \the eldest son of a cloth-maker. When he was six 
years old his mother died, and he was brought up by an 
aunt. She was a deeply religious woman, and having 
brought him up in the strictest religious habits in the In- 
dependent Church she encouraged him to become a minister. 
Being never very robust he was the more serious-minded 
and diligent in his studies, and early in his teens had learned 
Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and he eventually became master 
of half a score of foreign languages. Although brought 
up a strict Calvinist, he early showed an independent mind, 
and when he sought to join the church he was refused ad- 
mission because he could not say he believed he shared the 
guilt of Adam’s sin. Nor would he enter the academy in 
London where it was proposed to send him, for he had now 
become an Arminian in belief, and could not sign the creed 
which was set before the students twice a year to keep them 
straight in the faith. So he went to a new academy at 
Daventry, where he was enrolled as its first student, and 
there began his studies for the ministry. Very free discus- 
sion of both sides of all questions was encouraged here, 


JOSEPH PRIESTLEY 359 


and as he found himself taking the liberal side of almost 
every question he soon had become an Arian. 

His studies finished, Priestley accepted the first call that 
came to him, and became minister of a Presbyterian congre- 
gation at a little village in Suffolk, with a salary of but £30 
a year, refusing an extra stipend which he might have had 
had he been willing to subscribe a creed, and trying to cke 
out this scanty salary by teaching. He set to work with 
great industry in his church and in the prosecution of 
further studies; for he was an incessant worker, methodi- 
cal in his use of time, and never allowing a moment to go to 
waste, and throughout his long life he seldom lost an hour 
of work through illness. Results were not encouraging. 
He was hindered by an inherited tendency to stammer, which 
made him a poor public speaker; but worse than that, he 
was steadily moving further and further from orthodoxy, 
dropping one belief after another; and as they discovered 
this, members of his congregation gradually fell away from 
his services and withdrew their support until he was often 
in want, and was hardly able to keep out of debt. He was 
glad therefore after three years to accept a call to a more 
liberal congregation at Nantwich in Cheshire. The con- 
gregation was small but sympathetic; and as it made no 
great demands on him, he was able to supplement his 
meager salary again by teaching from seven to seven, with 
no holidays. Hard as this labor was, he much enjoyed it, 
and was able to buy some books and scientific apparatus ; 
and he found time to write a book on theology, and an 
English grammar on an original plan. 

The reputation he made by his teaching at Nantwich led 
to his appointment, after three years, as teacher of lan- 
guages at Warrington, in a new Dissenting academy where 
all three of the teachers were Arians. Here he spent six 


360 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


happy years, in which he published several works growing 
out of his teaching, one of which led the University of Edin- 
burgh to make him a Doctor of Laws. In this period he 
also met Dr. Franklin in London, and with his encourage- 
ment wrote a History of Electricity, and he was soon after- 
wards elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, which later 
gave him the supreme honor of its gold medal for his dis- 
coveries in chemistry. 

While at Warrington, Priestley continued to preach, 
having by very patient practice somewhat overcome his 
habit of stammering; and as his teaching was bringing him 
only the barest living, he accepted in 1767 a call to the 
Mill Hill Chapel at Leeds, the largest Dissenting congrega- 
tion in the north of England, where he spent the next six 
years. Happy to be doing again the work of his first 
choice, he threw himself into it with great energy, was 
diligent in preaching, in visiting his people, in instruct- 
ing the young, and in organizing the congregation. Find- 
ing many of the liberal Dissenters slipping away to the 
Methodists, whose movement was then sweeping over Eng- 
land, he wrote a tract appealing to them to be true to their 
convictions and not let themselves be carried away by popular 
emotion. Thirty thousand copies of this tract were cir- 
culated, and together with others had a great effect in arous- 
ing loyalty. He also continued his studies in theology, and 
published several new volumes on the subject; and now giv- 
ing up Arianism he became a full-fledged Unitarian, beliey- 
ing in the simple humanity of Jesus, a doctrine which until 
now had been professed by very few in England. It was in 
this period that he first met Lindsey and gave him his 
sympathy. 

For recreation in leisure hours Priestley continued his 
experiments in electricity, and began important experiments 


JOSEPH PRIESTLEY 361 


in the chemistry of the air which led him later to the dis- 
covery of oxygen,’ and thus made him one of the founders 
of modern chemistry, and one of the most distinguished sci- 
entific men of his age. The fame he thus won brought him 
a proposal to accompany Captain Cook as astronomer on 
his second voyage around the world; but as some clergy- 
men of influence opposed him on account of his religious 
views, the appointment was denied him. Soon afterwards, 
however, when he was offered a position as literary com- 
panion to Lord Shelburne, with a large salary, and much 
freedom to pursue his studies in theology and his experi- 
ments in science, the conditions were too attractive to re- 
sist. He continued in this position for seven years. Trav- 
eling on the Continent with his lordship he was received 
with high honor by the scientific men of Paris. They gen- 
erally professed to be atheists, while he did not hesitate to 
declare his belief in Christianity; whereupon some of them 
told him he was the only person of sense they had ever met 
who professed to believe in the Christian religion. He con- 
tinued his scientific studies, published more volumes on 
theology or philosophy, and when in London saw much 
of Lindsey and gave him great help in his new work. 
The war with the American colonies was now going on, and 
Priestley’s sympathy with them was undisguised, while his 
patron’s sympathies were on the other side. Priestley there- 
fore resigned his position in 1780, and as he was soon called 
to be one of the ministers of the New Meeting at Birming- 
ham he again returned to the pulpit. 

Now began the happiest and most influential period of 
Priestley’s life, though it was to end in tragedy. He was the 

1In the course of these experiments he invented carbonated water, and 


thus deserves to be remembered with gratitude by any one who on a hot 
summer’s day enjoys a glass of “soda water,” 


362 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


most liberal of the Dissenting ministers, and the New Meet- 
ing was the most liberal congregation in England, so that 
they suited each other well. It was a famous church, con- 
taining not a few distinguished men. It was agreed that he 
might devote himself to studies and writing during the week, 
and serve the church only on Sundays, while his colleague 
was to have the care of the parish. He performed his 
part of the duties faithfully, preaching mornings, and in 
the afternoon teaching or catechizing his young people, 
sometimes as many as a hundred and fifty of them, taken in 
three or four classes one after another. He continued his 
experiments in science, and also got deeper and deeper into 
theology, publishing two of his most elaborate and im- 
portant works, History of the Corruptions of Christianity * 
(1782), and History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus 
Christ (1786). Previous writers had generally stopped with 
trying to show that the early church was not Trinitarian 
but Arian. In these works Priestley contended that the 
earliest belief about Christ was purely Unitarian, and that 
the doctrines which arose later came of the corrupting in- 
fluence of pagan philosophy upon Christian thought. He 
insisted that the orthodox worship of Christ was sheer 
idolatry, and that Arianism was little better. 

These writings brought down upon him bitter and even 
vicious attacks, especially from Archdeacon Horsley, with 
whom a controversy went on for some eight years. 
Priestley’s great fame as a scientist had drawn much at- 
tention to his theological works, and it was feared that 
they might have disastrous effects upon the clergy. Horsley 
therefore sought, by magnifying certain incidental errors 
into which too hasty writing had led Priestley, to prevent 
such a result by discrediting him as a competent authority 


1 Ordered burnt by the common hangman at Dort, Holland, 1785. 


JOSEPH PRIESTLEY 363 


in theology, and as perhaps even dishonest, and on this 
ground he excused himself from attempting to answer 
Priestley’s main argument. So far as the Church of Eng- 
land was concerned, Horsley succeeded in his purpose, for 
but a handful left the Church to follow Priestley; but with 
the liberal Dissenters Priestley’s prestige was immensely in- 
creased. Each year he would publish a volume of Defences 
of Unitartanism to meet the attacks that were being made 
on them; and as he was the first powerful champion they 
had had since open speaking became safe, they rallied to 
his standard, while he in turn powerfully molded their 
thought and confirmed them in their beliefs. 

Eleven years, the happiest and most fruitful of his life, 
Priestley lived in Birmingham. Sundays he devotedly 
served his church; weekdays he spent in studying and writ- 
ing on theological subjects, or in his scientific experiments. 
Meantime clouds were beginning to gather over his head. 
His bold and repeated attacks on the Trinity made many 
converts to Unitarianism, and prevented many others from 
slipping over to the Church of England, and his church grew 
rapidly. The clergy of the town, who from the first had 
shown much bigotry towards him, began violently to abuse 
him from their pulpits and in print, calling him infidel, 
atheist, and no better than the Devil himself ; but he defended 
himself ably, and showed much better spirit than his 
opponents. 

Yet fiercer opposition came upon him when he championed 
the cause of the Dissenters in their effort before Parliament 
to have the Test and Corporation Acts* repealed. These 
laws, passed more than a century before, were designed 
to exclude Dissenters from all offices in the municipal and 
national governments; and although they had now long 


1See page 329, 


364 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


lain unenforced or suspended or evaded, so that prosecution 
under them had become practically unknown, Dissenters 
held office only under humiliating conditions, and with the 
knowledge that at any time the rigor of the law might fall 
upon them. For more than half a century now no attempt 
had been made to have them repealed; but as Dissenters had 
not long since been relieved of subscription to the Articles 
of Religion, and the government was believed to be liberal, 
it was felt that the time was ripe for them to agitate for 
full rights. The orthodox Dissenters did little about it, 
but the liberals took up the movement actively, with 
Priestley as their ablest and most active champion. 

The High Church party opposed the movement with the 
greatest bitterness. ‘Taking advantage of the known sym- 
pathy of Priestley and other liberal Dissenters with the 
French Revolution, which had lately overthrown the most 
corrupt state and church in Europe, but had now begun to 
run into dangerous excesses, they used every means to make 
it appear that church and state were also in peril in Eng- 
land, and that the real purpose of the Dissenters was to 
overthrow the Church of England and dethrone the king, 
and that Priestley and his followers were really conspirators 
and traitors in disguise. The petition to Parliament was 
defeated thrice in succession, and the attempt was for the 
time abandoned,! but the High Church party would not be 
appeased. Edmund Burke by his writings and his speeches 
in Parliament, and the clergy throughout the kingdom, tried 
to inflame the minds of the people against Priestley. At- 
tacks upon him in Birmingham, and upon other Dissenters 
elsewhere, were made with fresh fury. Meantime the Revolu- 
tion in France had got out of hand and was running into 


1The Acts were not finally repealed until 1828, though in Ireland 
the Test Act was repealed in 1780, 


JOSEPH PRIESTLEY 365 


widespread violence and bloodshed, so that many con- 
servatives in England were honestly nervous with anxiety 
lest revolution should cross the Channel. Every means was 
therefore used to fill the popular mind with the notion that 
Dissenters were dangerous radicals who were plotting 
treason. 

At last in 1791, on a date decided on beforehand, the 
train which had been carefully laid was fired at Birming- 
ham. A drunken mob of several thousand was gathered 
from the lower classes, with minds poisoned and inflamed by 
the High Church clergy and their party. They burnt 
Priestley’s and another Dissenting meeting-house, plundered 
his library, scattered his manuscripts, the labor of years, 
destroyed his scientific apparatus, burnt his house, and 
would gladly have murdered him, but that he was warned 
just in time and barely escaped with his life. ‘Church and 
King” was their slogan, as if to overawe and discipline con- 
spirators against the Constitution and government of Eng- 
land; but their real motive was religious bigotry against 
Dissenters in general, and in particular against the Unita- 
rians and their leader, Dr. Priestley. Three days and nights 
the mob raged and pillaged, with no serious attempt made 
to control them until soldiers were sent from a distance. A 
hundred or more houses, and several meeting-houses, were 
burnt, torn down, or sacked, practically all of them belong- 
ing to liberal Dissenters, whose property loss was a quarter 
of a million pounds. 

The High Church party openly exulted over the lesson 
they had taught to show the Dissenters their place, and the 
clergyman who had done most to stir up the trouble was 

1 July 14, when the anniversary of the fall of the Bastille, as the 


beginning of the French Revolution, was to be observed by meetings 
of liberals in many parts of England. 


366 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


soon afterwards rewarded by being made a bishop. Out of 
several thousand rioters fewer than twenty were finally put 
to trial, and the trial was a farce. Only six, known to be 
desperate criminals anyway, were convicted, and of these 
two escaped punishment. ‘The victims of the mob recovered 
at law but little more than half of their losses. 

Deep sympathy was shown Priestley from many quarters, 
and money was sent him-by many friends. Addresses of 
sympathy poured in on him from many societies in England, 
France and America. The French voted him a citizen of 
their new republic, and appointed him to a seat in their 
National Assembly; but at home religious bigotry contin- 
ued to do its work against him. He never found it safe to 
return to Birmingham; but he sent back, to be read from 
the ruins of his meeting-house, a sermon on the text, 
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” 
Going to London, he was soon chosen minister of the church 
at Hackney, to succeed his friend Dr. Price who had lately 
died. Here he preached for some three years, also teaching 
theology in a liberal college near by, and happy in the 
frequent society of his dearest friend, Lindsey. 

Yet even in London, life was made almost intolerable 
for him. He could scarcely get a house to live in, nor 
could his wife get a servant. Shunned by his former 
friends, and threatened by his enemies, he knew not at what 
hour some new charge of sedition might be trumped up 
against him, and he be sent into exile a prisoner, as had 
already happened to one of his friends. His sons had 
already been driven from their positions and had emigrated 
to America. Thither he followed them in 1794. He was 
received with distinction at New York and Philadelphia, and 
at length joined his sons at Northumberland, a new set- 
tlement on the Susquehanna. Here he spent the last ten 


JOSEPH PRIESTLEY 367 


years of his life, happy in the freedom of the New World, 
though even here he was calumniated from the pulpit and in 
the newspapers. In his new life he continued as of old to 
study, carried on his scientific experiments, and published 
books in defense of his views of religion to the very last. 
Winters he would go into Philadelphia where he often 
preached or lectured, and formed congenial friendship not 
only with scientists and scholars, but with eminent statesmen 
like Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, as he had previously 
done with Franklin in England. He died in 1804. 

Priestley was an extraordinary man, for the variety of 
his interests and the vast amount of work he acccomplished 
apart from his ministry. Not counting his scientific writ- 
ings, his works fill twenty-five large volumes, and cover a 
wide range of subjects. The world at large remembers him 
as a great ploneer of modern chemistry, and as almost the 
most famous scientist of his time; but to him the study of 
science was only an incidental recreation. Far more than 
this he loved theological study, and his chief delight was. 
to propagate Unitarianism. Of all subjects in the world 
he regarded religion as by far the most important; and 
his favorite occupation was the work of the Christian min- 
istry, which he declared to be the most important, useful, 
and honorable of all professions. He was a man of the 
most devout personal religion, and of unshakable trust in 
God; and despite all his sufferings he never wavered in his 
faith that God had ordered all for the best. 

Priestley’s theology was a singular combination of some 
views that even now seem pretty advanced, and that quite 
shocked the Unitarians of his own time when they were 
first expressed, and of others that liberal thinkers have long 
since left far behind. He denied the miraculous birth of 
Jesus, and believed that he was born at Nazareth, with 


368 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the same physical, mental, and moral imperfections as other 
human beings, and that his character was only gradually 
formed and improved. At the same time he believed the 
miracles to be literally true, and attached to them the 
greatest importance as the very foundation of Christianity. 
He also looked for the literal fulfillment of Old Testament 
prophecies, and expected the second coming of Christ; and 
although he believed that the soul is a function of the body 
and dies with it, he believed that God will at the last day 
restore each soul to life by its own miraculous resurrection. 

Whatever he believed he preached out boldly and with- 
out apology or hesitation, defending and urging his views 
ably and fearlessly. This was in marked contrast with the 
practice of most preachers of his time, who were timid in 
speaking out what they thought, for fear lest the old law 
against blasphemy be revived. The example of this intrepid 
champion of free thought and free speech put courage into 
the hearts of the liberal Dissenters. He did much to break 
down Arianism among them; and as he boldly proclaimed 
Unitarian views and adopted the Unitarian name, and urged 
that the liberal Dissenting churches ought to accept it, many 
of them did so. He assisted in the formation of the earliest 
organizations for bringing the scattered and disunited liberal 
churches together for common effort. As their most active 
spokesman and writer he helped them to realize what they 
stood for as contrasted with the Church of England or the 
orthodox Dissenters. Thus he roused the slumbering body 
of English Unitarianism into active life, infused spirit and 
conviction into its members, and together with Lindsey 
deserves to be regarded as one of the two modern founders 
of the movement that exists to-day; the organization and 
life of which, during the nineteenth century, remains to be 
spoken of in the next chapter. 


CHAPTER XXXII 


ENGLISH UNITARIANISM IN THE NINE- 
TEENTH CENTURY 


Although our story of the Unitarian movement in Eng- 
land has already covered more than a century and a half 
since its first definite beginnings with Bidle, it has not yet 
reached any organized body of Unitarian churches. It has 
been a story on the one hand of a struggle for life in face 
of constant danger of oppression by the laws of the land, 
and of bitter opposition in the religious circles of both 
churchmen and Dissenters; and on the other hand of the 
steady deepening of a clear religious conviction that would 
not be crushed by oppression nor driven from the field by 
opposition. The nineteenth century brings us a happier 
story, in which we find the old persecuting laws against 
Unitarians abolished, civil rights won by them after long 
struggle, religious opposition to them losing much of its 
bitterness, and the movement becoming organized for effective 
service as a recognized part of the religious life of England. 

Three leaders stand out above all others in bringing this 
organization about. In the last two chapters we have 
spoken of two of these, of whom Priestley came from the 
liberal Dissenters, and Lindsey from the Church of Eng- 
land. The third member of the triumvirate came from yet 
a third source, the orthodox Dissenters, and was the first 
of them to resigm an important position for conscience’ 


sake and join the Unitarians. His name was Thomas Bel- 
369 


370 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


sham, and his great work was to lead in organizing the dis- 
united Unitarian congregations into a denomination that 
could act effectively for its cause, and to continue Priestley’s 
work as the organizer of its thought, its public spokesman, 
and its champion against attacks. 

Belsham was born at Bedford in 1750, the son of a 
Dissenting minister, and being designed for the ministry he 
was sent for his education to the academy at Daventry, 
where Priestley had studied a generation before him. In 
due time he entered the Independent (Congregational) min- 
istry, but although preaching more or less he was for nearly 
twenty years chiefly occupied as teacher in the academy. 
He was earnestly orthodox, though open-minded, examining 
both sides of questions and encouraging his pupils to do the 
same. So it came to pass that he first drifted from strict ~ 
Trinitarianism to the Arian views of Dr. Clarke, and later 
while studying Unitarian writings with the purpose of con- 
futing them, felt driven to accept Unitarianism himself, and 
adopted views much the same as those of Priestley. He 
therefore resigned his very important position as principal 
of the academy in 1789 and confessed his views at a time 
when, as he said, “a Socinian is still a sort of monster in 
the world.” 

Lindsey’s resignation had had only a limited effect among 
the Dissenters, but the example of Belsham, who had been 
held in great honor among them, had much influence in en- 
couraging them frankly to profess their liberal beliefs. 
Although he had resigned without other prospects in view, 
he was soon chosen teacher in the Unitarian academy at 
Hackney, where he was happy in intimate association with 
Lindsey, and later with Priestley; and when Priestley re- 
moved to America, Belsham succeeded him as one of the 
ministers of the Unitarian church. At length in 1805, upon 


UNITARIANISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY 371 


the resignation of Dr. Disney, who had succeeded Lindsey at 
Essex Street Chapel, Belsham was called to that important 
pulpit. Here he preached until his death in 1829, winning 
great popularity and fame as a powerful preacher both on 
theology and on questions of the day, so that he soon came 
to be regarded, from both his abilities and his position, as 
the leader of those holding Unitarian views. 

A timid attempt had been made as early as 1783 to 
get the Unitarians to act together through a Society for 
Promoting Knowledge of the Scriptures, though it never 
flourished, and it accomplished nothing more than to pub- 
lish a liberal commentary ; but the society was not denomina- 
tional, for there was as yet no denomination for it to belong 
to. Belsham, however, earnest with the zeal of a fresh con- 
vert, proposed that some positive action be now taken to 
organize the scattered liberal forces for spreading Unitarian 
views. He was heartily seconded by Lindsey and Priestley, 
and thus in 1791 was formed the Unitarian Society for the 
Promotion of Christian Knowledge and the Practice of 
Virtue by the Distribution of Books (briefly called the 
Unitarian Society, or Unitarian Book Society). Belsham 
was not willing that the publications of the society should 
give any uncertain sound, and as he regarded the worship 
of Christ as sheer idolatry he drew up the constitution so as 
expressly to exclude Arians from membership. Some of 
them objected to this provision, but the result of this and 
other causes was that within a generation Arianism was 
pretty well eliminated from the Unitarian movement. The 
Arians had never organized as such, and from now on, though 
-some of them went back to orthodoxy, more and more of 
them accepted the strictly Unitarian views of Priestley and 
Belsham, until worship of Christ finally disappeared among 
the Unitarians. 


372 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


This Unitarian Society of London proved so successful 
that it was soon followed by similar ones in each of the four 
quarters of the kingdom, and these in turn by many local 
tract societies. These all had an important influence in 
drawing the scattered liberal Presbyterian and General 
Baptist churches together in a common effort and sympathy, 
and in encouraging them to take the Unitarian name and 
support the Unitarian cause. It gave them the confidence 
and sense of united strength that is inspired by a common 
standard; and this had indeed become quite necessary for 
self-preservation in face of orthodox opposition. Many im- 
portant books and tracts were published and circulated, 
especially by the Book Society. Most noted among these 
was an Improved Version of the New Testament (1808). 
In this work Belsham took the leading part. It made many 
corrections in the text, and anticipated many of the changes 
later made in the Revised Version. It was accompanied by 
many notes on points involved in the Unitarian controversy, 
and although it was most bitterly attacked by the ortho- 
dox, it long served the Unitarians as an arsenal of scripture 
weapons. 

Many Unitarians of the day shrank from active public 
efforts for their cause for fear lest laws still sleeping on 
the statute-books should be roused against them, and some 
of them therefore opposed even the founding of the Book 
Society. Many others felt that this organization would 
surely suffice, for when men once had the Unitarian argument 
in print and read it, orthodoxy must silently and surely be 
undermined within a few years. Converts came, but too 
slowly. Not all would read, and not all who read were 
converted. Many remained whom the printed books, ser- 
mons, tracts, and periodicals did not reach. It was seen 
that unless Unitarians were to rest content to have their 


UNITARIANISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY 3738 


lamp hidden under a bushel, personal missionary preaching 
needed to be done. One Richard Wright, a General Baptist 
preacher of humble origin, who had become converted to 
Unitarian views, had for fourteen years traveled about the 
north and east of England as a voluntary missionary of 
Unitarianism, and he found a ready hearing for his doctrine 
among the common people. 

At about the same time David Eaton, a Baptist layman 
of York, made the great discovery of Unitarianism, and 
believed that instead of remaining merely on the defensive, 
Unitarians ought to be as aggressive and as zealous for 
spreading their gospel by popular preaching as were the 
orthodox. He began to do lay preaching himself, and con- 
tinued to do so for many years, persistently agitating the 
while for the forming of a Unitarian missionary society. 
It was objected that the time was not ripe, that Unitarian- 
ism was not a religion for the common people, that orthodox 
opposition and perhaps even civil persecution would be 
stirred up, that lay preaching among the Methodists had run 
to scandalous excess and brought religion into ridicule. 
Lindsey, however, and some others sympathized with the 
idea, which gradually won approval; and after eight years 
of effort by Eaton there was founded in 1806 the Unitarian 
Fund for Promoting Unitariantsm by means of Popular 
Preaching (briefly called the Unitarian Fund). It was 
designed to aid poor Unitarian congregations, to support 
Unitarian missionaries, and to assist ministers who had 
suffered on account of becoming Unitarians. 

The missionary spirit now spread all over the country, 
and many local auxiliary societies were formed. Those who 
believed that Unitarianism would be acceptable only to the 
educated and wealthy of the upper classes discovered their 
serious mistake. Richard Wright was sent into the field 


374 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


as missionary, and for years he traveled on foot all over 
England and Scotland, undergoing much hardship, meeting 
many exciting adventures, preaching in kitchens, barns, 
market-places, or open fields, wherever he could get people 
together, like a Unitarian Wesley. He thus preached in 
every county and every large town in England and Scot- 
land, and in many villages, won multitudes of converts, 
founded many Unitarian congregations of humble people, 
and strengthened many weak congregations already 
existing. 

While Wright was spreading his message broadcast, a 
popular Methodist preacher in northeast Lancashire, 
Joseph Cooke, came to hold heretical views, and was there- 
fore expelled from his church in 1806. He became the 
founder of Unitarian Methodism in that district, and about 
a dozen Unitarian Methodist churches resulted, which for 
some years had lay preachers and their own association, but 
at length were absorbed into the general Unitarian body 
under settled pastors. 

The missionary wave also flowed north into Scotland. 
There had already been a liberal stir there in the second 
half of the eighteenth century, as Robert Burns reveals in 
his “Kirk’s Alarm,” but Presbyterianism was strictly organ- 
ized there, and liberalism was held well in check. A Unita- 
rian church was, however, founded in Edinburgh in 1776, and 
one at Montrose in 1782, and later one in Dundee, by the 
Rey, Thomas Fyshe Palmer, who also preached in various 
other towns. But the movement was cut short when Palmer, 
who had joined in an agitation for political reform, got 
caught in the back-wash of political conservatism and was 
sentenced for sedition to seven years’ penal servitude at 
Botany Bay, whence returning home he was shipwrecked 
and perished on the way. In 1811, however, a strong per- 


UNITARIANISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY = 3875 


manent movement was established in Glasgow, and the first 
Unitarian church building in Scotland was erected. 

The organization of the Unitarian Fund brought new 
spirit into the old churches, and by its successful missionary 
work soon surpassed the modest influence of the Book So- 
ciety. Closed churches were re-opened, weak ones were 
aided, more missionaries were sent into the field, and plans 
were made even for work in foreign lands. The results of 
these efforts were so widespread and the gains made were 
so rapid that whereas at the beginning of the century the 
Unitarians had been despised for their weakness, within less 
than twenty years they had become respected for their 
strength, and were viewed with alarm for the inroads they 
were making upon orthodoxy. 

In all this new movement Belsham played an active part. 
He was an able organizer, and had an eloquent voice and a 
powerful pen. Though naturally disliking controversy, 
when he felt bound to go into it he showed himself a doughty 
antagonist, whose blows smarted and stung, and his biting 
sarcasm did not spare even a bishop who deserved it. His 
clear handling of questions in controversy with the Church of 
England did much to prevent defections to it from the 
Dissenting churches. He ably vindicated Priestley and 
Lindsey from attacks made on them after they were dead, 
and in his more than fifty published writings he clearly 
stated and powerfully defended the Unitarian doctrines. 
Unitarianism meant to him a very clear and definite thing: 
the belief in one God in one person only, who alone may 
be worshiped ; and in Christ as in all respects a human being, 
whose miracles and resurrection prove him to be the chosen 
Messiah. Where timid Unitarians had hardly dared con- 
fess this belief, he proclaimed it boldly, and thus inspired 
them with boldness in standing by their convictions. 


376 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


_ The open progress of Unitarianism at this period was not 
a little stimulated and encouraged in 1813 by the repeal of 
the part of the Blasphemy Act affecting them.t This law, 
which had been on the statute book since 1698, making 
Unitarians liable to loss of civil rights and to imprisonment, 
had from the first been practically a dead letter, and the 
crown had of late forbidden prosecutions under it; yet there 
was always a haunting possibility that it might again be 
enforced. An unsuccessful attempt had been made to get it 
repealed in 1792, but that was too near the time of the 
Birmingham riots for any concessions to be made to liberal 
Dissenters. Now, however, the repeal was accomplished 
without opposition, under the leadership of William Smith 
(grandfather of Florence Nightingale), a stanch Unitarian 
who had long been the champion of the rights of Dissenters 
before Parliament. 

Unitarians might now, after a century and a half, enjoy 
freedom of worship as a legal right, instead of having it 
merely winked at; but there were yet other rights to win 
before they had all those to which they should be entitled 
in a free country, and events soon showed them the need 
of carrying their struggle still further. For old laws still 
subjected them to various petty annoyances, and _ their 
property rights were endangered. The rapid progress they 
had made since the beginning of the century, and the vigor- 
ous speech of some of them in their attacks upon the ortho- 
dox system, had roused among some of the orthodox 
a spirit of intense antagonism against them, which only 
waited for an opportunity to make reprisals. 

The first clear sign of trouble from this quarter was shown 
at Wolverhampton, near Birmingham. The Presbyterian 


1See page 289. 


UNITARIANISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY 3877 


church which had existed there since late in the seventeenth 
century had, like so many others, gradually grown liberal, 
and was now frankly Unitarian, though still occupying the 
chapel built by an orthodox generation. In 1816 its min- 
ister announced that he had become a Trinitarian, where- 
upon an attempt was made to force his resignation. Much 
bitterness of feeling and action developed both for and 
against him. The orthodox took his part, and the next 
year went into court and sought to get the church property 
taken out of the hands of the Unitarians, on the ground that 
it had been intended only for orthodox worship. The suit 
was stubbornly fought on both sides and dragged on for 
many years; for it was realized that if the Unitarians lost 
this chapel they might also lose the greater number of all 
they occupied. Indeed, there were rumors of proceedings 
to this end being already started in various places. 

Their previous organizations had had only missionary 
ends in view; but it was now seen by the Unitarians that they 
must organize to defend their common interests at law. 
Hence in 1819 was founded yet another society, the Asso- 
ciation for the Protection of the Civil Rights of Unitarians. 
This was designed not only to defend their property rights 
but in various other ways to secure for them fuller civil 
rights; for there still seemed to be a possibility that bigots 
might have them prosecuted under the common law for 
blasphemy; while the Test and Corporation Acts still made 
it illegal for any Dissenters to hold public office.’ Further 
grievances were that marriage might be performed only by 
clergymen of the Established Church; births, marriages, and 
deaths might be legally recorded only in the parish registers 
of that church; Dissenters might not be buried in parish 

1 See page 329n, 


378 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


cemeteries except with the service of the Established Church ; 
and they were excluded from the universities and were taxed 
to support the Established Church. 

Although the Unitarians had long taken the lead in de- 
fending the public interests of the Dissenters, there were 
signs that from the orthodox they might now expect oppo- 
sition rather than support of their own claims, so that they 
must needs act independently in their own behalf. The 
struggle for full equality of rights was long and hard 
fought. That for repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts 
lasted for over ninety years, and it was not until the fifth 
attempt in Parliament that they were finally repealed in 
1828. The other rights were then secured one after an- 
other until last of all in 1871 all tests for degrees or fel- 
lowship were abolished at the universities. 

In time it came to be realized that the common interests 
of Unitarians could be promoted by a single comprehensive 
organization better than by several separate ones, and 
such an organization was urged from 1819 on, until at 
length in 1825 was formed the British and Foreign Unita- 
rian Association, which at once, absorbed the Civil Rights 
Association and the Unitarian Fund, and a year later the 
Book Society. From this time on, English Unitarian- 
ism, now efficiently organized, entered upon more effective 
work and greater activity as a denomination. Missionary 
enterprises were pushed with increased vigor. The Rev. 
George Harris during twenty years carried on an aggressive 
mission in the north of England and in Scotland. In Glas- 
gow he drew immense audiences and won great prominence 
for the Unitarian faith, while elsewhere in Scotland he had 
over forty preaching stations, and was known by the ortho- 
dox as “the Devil’s chaplain.”” Foreign work was also un- 
dertaken. Communication had already been established in 


UNITARIANISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY 379 


1822 with the Unitarians of Transylvania,' and it has 
been kept up to this day. Churches were organized at 
Gibraltar (1830) and at Paris (1831), and a missionary 
sent to India (1831) established a church and school at 
Madras. 

Such aggressive life aroused orthodox hostility at home, 
and bitter attacks were made on the Unitarians, and 
resulted in some notable controversies, in which the Unita- 
rians generally acted on the defensive, replying to attacks 
made on them, appealing to Scripture for support of their 
doctrine, and trying as far as possible to keep the discus- 
sion within the bounds of courtesy. Great public interest 
was taken in some of these discussions, which took place in 
various parts of the country. Thus Belsham in London had 
maintained the Unitarian doctrine of Christ; Dr. Lant 
Carpenter at Bristol had defended the Unitarian doctrine of 
the atonement and the Improved Version (1820) against the 
unfair attacks of Dr. (later Archbishop) Magee; the Rev. 
James Yates at Glasgow had defended Unitarianism (1815- 
1817) against the attacks of the Rev. Ralph Wardlaw in a 
controversy which filled four or five volumes; the Rev. John 
Scott Porter held at Belfast (1834) a four days’ public 
debate on Unitarianism with the Rev. Dr. Bagot; while the 
three Unitarian ministers at Liverpool in thirteen sermons 
ably defended their doctrines against the massed attack 
made on them by thirteen clergymen of the Church of Eng- 
land (1839). These controversies indicate how dangerous 
the orthodox thought Unitarianism was becoming, and they 
not only won some Unitarian converts, but did yet more 
to rally the Unitarians themselves to their cause, and to con- 
firm them in their faith. 

The most serious of these controversies in its results upon 


1 See page 270, 


380 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the Unitarian movement was one which arose at Manchester 
in 1824, At a public dinner of the Unitarian congregation 
one of the speakers made some remarks upon orthodoxy 
which were reported in the newspaper and were indignantly 
resented by the orthodox, who at length determined to re- 
taliate in a way that would not easily be forgotten. Ever 
since the beginning of the Wolverhampton Chapel case they 
had been casting envious*eyes on the Unitarian properties, 
and waiting for the time to come when these might be seized 
by process of law. Sectarian zeal now stirred them up to 
carry out their design, in a law case which became very 
famous. 

One Dame Sarah Hewley of the Presbyterian congrega- 
tion at York had in 1704 and later left certain trust funds 
to found charities for “poor and godly preachers of Christ’s 
holy gospel” and others. As the Presbyterian churches 
grew more liberal these funds had gradually drifted into the 
hands of Unitarian trustees, and the income had to a con- 
siderable degree been used for the support of Unitarian 
ministers. The Independents now set about to get control 
of these funds, and in 1830 brought suit to have the 
Unitarian trustees removed, maintaining that Unitarians 
had no right to the use of the old Presbyterian properties, 
since these had been originally intended for orthodox use 
at a time when Unitarianism was illegal. The Unitarians 
maintained on the other hand that as no orthodox lmita- 
tions had been specified none was intended. The case was 
stubbornly fought, and appealed from court to court, the 
decisions running steadily against the Unitarians, until 
finally it was decided by the House of Lords in 1842 that 
no trust might now be used for any purpose which was 
illegal at the time when the trust was established. The 
Unitarian trustees were. therefore removed, and the trust 


UNITARIANISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY = 381 


was placed in the hands of trustees from the three orthodox 
Dissenting denominations. 

The decision of the Lady Hewley case, as it was called, 
formed the most critical day in the history of English 
Unitarianism. The Wolverhampton Chapel case, which had 
been held back awaiting the decision of the Lady Hewley 
case, was now decided in accordance with it. The Unitarians 
lost their chapel there, but as it eventually fell into the 
hands of the Church of England, the orthodox Dissenters got 
no benefit of it. 

While these cases were pending in England, similar litiga- 
tion in Ireland had deprived the Unitarians of a chapel and 
a fund there; other suits were in progress, and there was 
danger that they might lose all their chapels in Ulster. 
No further suit had yet been brought in England, but as 
the orthodox had declared their intention of attacking all 
the old Presbyterian chapels and endowments, two or three 
hundred lawsuits were in prospect or talked of, and there 
was acute danger lest over two hundred chapels which the 
Unitarians had occupied for three or four generations, to- 
gether with the churchyards where their dead were buried, 
and their schools and charitable funds, should be taken from 
them, and only a score or so of mostly small churches be 
left to them. | | 

It was realized that no escape from their fate could 
be had except through a special act of Parliament. The 
government was therefore induced to bring in the “Dis- 
senters’ Chapels Bill,” in 1844, which provided that congre- 
gations should henceforth remain undisturbed in the posses- 
sion of chapels which they had occupied for twenty-five 
years. The bill was strenuously opposed and _ petitioned 
against by most of the Bishops, and by the Congregation- 
alists, Methodists, and orthodox Baptists; but other peti- 


382 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


tions were made in favor of it, and it received the power- 
ful support of the government of Sir Robert Peel, and of 
Lord John Russell, Lord Macaulay, and Gladstone, and 
was carried. by about three to one, to the great indignation 
of its orthodox opponents. 

The bitterly fought contests which had now dragged on 
through the courts for years so greatly aggravated any 
previous unfriendly feeling between Unitarians and orthodox 
that in 18386 all but one of the Unitarians, who for over a 
century had as Presbyterians belonged to the organization 
of Dissenting ministers in London, felt bound in self-respect 
to protest against the action of the orthodox majority by 
withdrawing from the union. Thus the last bond was 
severed that held together the three wings of the old 
Dissent. 

This long struggle of nearly thirty years had so much 
absorbed the interest and the energies of the young de- 
nomination that its progress had been much slowed down 
for nearly a generation; yet some gains had been made, as 
when an Influential group of liberal Presbyterian churches 
in Ireland joined the movement.* And now the passage of 
the Dissenters’ Chapels Act opened the door for new hope, 
confidence, and zeal in the churches, which after a few years 
began to be shown in various ways; for from 1844 dates a 
new era. A new fund was raised to replace the lost 
Lady Hewley Fund; new missionary societies were founded ; 
and although some small village churches were lost, many 
new congregations were established, especially in the large 
manufacturing towns of the north, and in London. Old 
congregations increased in size; new chapels were built and 
old ones repaired; churches were planted in the colonies; 


1See page 341. 


UNITARIANISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY 383 


a new divinity school * was established ; work was undertaken 
among the poor of the large cities. A second group of 
Methodists in the north of England joined the denomination, 
followers of the Rev. Joseph Barker, who in 1841 had been 
expelled from the Methodist New Connexion for heresy. 

While these external struggles and changes were going 
on, the denomination was also ripening its inner spirit and 
settling its thought. Priestley and Belsham, who for half 
a century had led the thought and greatly influenced the 
religious life of the denomination, while men of deep and 
sincere personal religion themselves, were led to lay their 
greatest emphasis on matters of belief and on opposition to 
orthodoxy; and in consequence the cultivation of the re- 
ligious feelings had been much neglected. Their religion 
seemed more of the head than of the heart, and many of the 
churches of their followers were deemed cold and unspiritual. 
This defect was early realized, and before the nineteenth 
century was a third gone the influence of Channing coming 
from America began to lead English Unitarians in another 
direction; while the subsiding of the controversy with or- 
thodoxy soon after left the Unitarians more free than they 
had ever yet been to develop and nourish an independent 
religious life. 

The leader in this change of spirit was James Martineau,” 


1The Unitarian Home Missionary Board (later named College) at 
Manchester, 1854, now the Unitarian College of Manchester. 

2James Martineau, born at Norwich 1805, was educated as a civil 
engineer, but to the great blessing of his church and of religion in his 
time he soon changed his career and prepared for the ministry. He 
preached at Dublin, 1828-1832, at Liverpool, 1832-1857, where he bore 
the leading part in the celebrated controversy over Unitarianism in 
1839 (see page 379), and in London, 1859-1872. At the same time he 
was professor in the divinity school then known as Manchester New 
College 1840-1885 (Principal from 1869). He published several vol- 


38-4 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


who began as a follower of Priestley, but after coming to 
give religion a different interpretation, was for forty-five 
years the teacher of many of the most influential ministers 
of the denomination and the molder of their thought. Un- 
der his guidance English Unitarians gave up their slavish 
reliance on texts of Scripture, and aimed first of all to 
have their beliefs reasonable; they ceased to attach im- 
portance to miracles, even if they continued to believe in 
them; and they came to regard Christ as wholly a man, and 
Arianism became practically extinct among them. Some re- 
garded these changes with alarm, and in 1865 an attempt 
was made to set up a Unitarian creed to keep such develop- 
ments from going further; but the attempt was defeated. 
In 1867 also Martineau attempted through a Free Christian 
Union to draw together liberal spirits in the various re- 
ligious bodies; but the orthodox would have little to do with 
it, and it was short-lived. A like attempt made by some 
liberal Congregationalists at the Congregational Union meet- 
ing in 1871, to open the way for association between them 
and the Unitarians, was defeated by a large majority, and 
has not since been renewed. 

Since the middle of the nineteenth century the history of 
English Unitarians has been one of wholesome and steady, 
though slow and uneventful progress. It has lost in some 
directions, but gained more in others. Minor organizations 
have grown up to supplement the work of the national As- 
sociation, in most cases taking advantage of the experience 
of American organizations formed a few years earlier. 


umes of memorable sermons, and some great works on theology, and 
was the most eminent Unitarian theologian of the nineteenth century. 
Celebrated alike as preacher, thinker, and teacher, and honored by the 
universities of five countries, he laid Christians of all denominations 
under obligation for his able support of their common Christian faith. 
He died in London in 1900. 


UNITARIANISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY — 385 


Unitarians have borne an influential and honorable part in 
the life of the nation. Far out of proportion to their 
numbers they have been represented in Parliament, and dis- 
tinguished in liberal politics, social reform, philanthropies, 
education, science, and literature.t Besides the burdens 
common to all Dissenters, they have had to bear the addi- 
tional one of being opposed by all the orthodox Dissenters. 
If this double burden has somewhat retarded their progress, 
it has on the other hand intensified their loyalty to their 
cause. The beginning of the twentieth century found them 
consisting of about 860 churches in the British Isles, and 
about a dozen more in the colonies—a number since then 
somewhat increased. 'They have long since ceased to en- 
tertain their youthful hopes that within a generation or two 
all England must see the truth as they see it; but on the 
other hand it is realized more clearly than ever that they 
have a distinct contribution to make to the religious life 
of England, without which that life would be poorer. They 
are doing their part intelligently and earnestly, and they 
look forward to a future of steady growth and of ever 
greater usefulness to Christian civilization. 

1 Besides persons mentioned in the text it may be enough to men- 
tion these distinguished Enplish Unitarians: Sir Charles Lyell the 
geologist; Sir William Jones the orientalist; William Roscoe the his- 
torian; Josiah Wedgwood the potter; Sir John Bowring the states- 
man; Professor W. S. Jevons the logician; David Ricardo the econ- 
omist; Erasmus Darwin the scientist; Mrs. Barbauld, Mrs. Gaskell 
and Maria Edgeworth, women of letters; John Pounds, founder of 


ragged schools; Florence Nightingale and Mary Carpenter, philanthro- 
pists. 








; 


sti ae 
Te ee IN SS 
hha: ea 


Ae 


¢4-.4 
aed pe 












- , , 
. 
1% ‘ Me Nae c 
et wri 1? Se 
t 
i! j a ’ © 
" a kt A 
#) tc¥ a7 
vf R . > oF. ' 
4 a u 
‘ hy : ; , 
, , (bast 8 
, a ee 
44 H 
. - 5 ' 

s : ne bye 

sent eee Pee eee Rae: Sian 2 Si ‘ 

7 } u 
, 3 y } 
a. - pee iy eee ’ vie ye 

t 1 ihe ; = 
_ rae = 
a a4 
1 , oa 7 . v 7 P 
: era) 7 ’ m! ' 
7 i : - f 
c ; ‘ ‘ 

, ere ae av : an ane Ki Fi 
= - 4 = : 
* ‘ 3 oe ie 

‘ ' 4 Loy —4 
eng ae Ses HON ge tg a aoe vce 
« ' 
i y . 7? 
p ve atin y. ; 
: y , u 
= . 4 
j 
' > ¥) - 
y t , 
i 7 3 : i. ; ~ 
2 Z i* r = 
‘ ; : : 
i 1 7 
* ri - ¥ P ‘ ia ? 
r . f i . < 
“{ 4 : y ‘ n a ve . 
¢ ef Ps ‘ foe ; i? 
\ q ye 
i 
‘ Ruf ts bf? pia.) Tle ae 
a ? ' -_ 
; fe 
4 - t ‘ P 
- : 
§ ’ 4 ’ , 
7 i 
¥ ; y Cer, 
! ‘x 
| . os be Be & 
; <8 ot Malar A 
iy Tr F ’ ae 
at we hi 7 
“ a? . 7 . ae 1 hi 
‘ 
4 
- 4 > 
a ate by Fy i 
2 * i 
iP 
eee ‘ ‘ . ¢ hie a | 
elaicl\” Lab 
4 at y m . 
ti | ¥ 
Pa ’ : 
‘ 49 hd “ 
E ‘ ‘ Ft ote 
¢ 
. {) re Se. 3 
: Pun ed Wiehe Rete he t 
7 . 
ied f 2%) os f ‘ jal 
‘ i ; ( hes a 
‘ee ' | > epee ‘ 
— Sy . i eA4y¢ i : 
’ 4 A 
? f ‘ 
* 7 SS 
‘ a i ‘ ve 
43 j PY.) . 
, 3 4 ‘ 4 ‘ o 7 si, 
‘ . z + ‘ Ay 
5 ~ ‘ 
' s a il ie 
' j ‘ r , “7 yk 
‘ a \ “Ei i 
‘ vy) Te gt Py : Bh cate bah aa 3 5 ' es 
4 s - \ rr? aay dy ye ‘ee *t 
‘ > ae a ” 4 7 De, ‘ / a. 1 Yt 
i i We Ge d a — as 
is it | » P 
i ri) n pet i A oeP AM oh 
‘ 1a 4 2 i wdse $ ‘ty Pl . i f ‘ oT 9 si , 
‘ ee ae 





DIVISION VI 


UNITARIANISM IN AMERICA 





CHAPTER XXXIV 


THE BEGINNINGS OF UNITARIANISM IN 
AMERICA, 1750-1805 


Thus far we have followed the story of the Unitarian 
movement on the Continent from its organized beginnings 
about 1565, and in England from the gathering of the first 
avowedly Unitarian church in 1774. The movement in 
America, however, did not begin to take a form distinct from 
orthodoxy until something like two centuries and a half after 
the first antitrinitarian churches were organized in Poland 
and Transylvania, and not until well over forty years after 
Lindsey began to preach in London. It would be natural 
to expect, therefore, that American Unitarianism would as 
a matter of course prove to be simply an outgrowth of 
these earlier movements across the Atlantic; yet this does not 
appear to have been the case. 

It is true that two Polish Socinians are said to have been 
among the earliest immigrants from England to the new 
colony of Georgia;* but no trace has been discovered of 
them or of their influence there. In fact, the only American 
church in which anything like direct Socinian influence may 
have been felt is one organized in 1803 on the frontier of 
the wilderness in central New York,” by two liberal exiles 
from Holland—a church which later on adhered to the 


1 About 1738. See page 190. 
2 At Oldenbarnevelt (later Trenton, now Barneveld), by the Rev. 
Francis A. van der Kemp and Col. A. G. Mappa. 
389 


390 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Unitarian movement. No Socinian books were in the 
libraries of Harvard or Yale before the nineteenth century, 
and there is almost no evidence that such books reached 
America at all until the Unitarian movement had become 
well launched here. 

Nor, close as was the connection between the mother 
country and the colonies, was American Unitarianism to 
any large extent an importation of that in England. 
Though the Episcopal King’s Chapel in Boston had fol- 
lowed Lindsey’s example in revising its Prayer Book in 
1785, and though Priestley soon after his arrival in America 
had organized two Unitarian churches of the English sort in 
Pennsylvania, yet the liberal American churches shrank 
from going as far as these had gone, and were little influ- 
enced by them. Only one English antitrinitarian work was 
reprinted in America in the eighteenth century, and that was 
the only mildly Arian Humble Inquiry by Emlyn. Few if 
any English Unitarian books were in the Harvard library 
before 1800, and the works of Priestley and Lindsey were as 
yet read only by the most daring; for, as we shall see, few 
of the New England clergy had any sympathy with their 
views. The roots of American Unitarianism go much 
further back into English religious history; so that the 
English and the American movement are related to each 
other not as mother and daughter, but as aunt and niece, 
since both trace descent from a common English ancestry 
early in the eighteenth century. This, however, is not to 
deny that the aunt had some influence in finally shaping 
the character of the niece. 

The Unitarian movement in America, then, was largely 
native to American soil; and as the Socinianism of Poland 
and the Unitarianism of Transylvania sprang up in the 
Reformed churches, and as English Unitarianism first de- 


BEGINNINGS IN AMERICA 391 


veloped mainly in the Presbyterian churches, so in New 
England it was in the Congregational churches that 
American Unitarianism first arose. Indeed, many of the 
older Unitarian churches of Massachusetts still retain their 
original Congregational name. 

These New England churches had had a twofold origin. 
The Pilgrim church at Plymouth and its neighbors in that 
colony were Separatists.'. Their earliest members had so- 
journed in Holland when Socinianism was just coming to 
make some impression there, and they must have imbibed 
some of the Dutch spirit of religious toleration; and while 
they would doubtless have opposed Socinian doctrines with 
heart and soul, yet from their first settlement in 1620 they 
showed a tolerant spirit which made progress easy when the 
time should be ripe. The churches of Boston, Salem, and 
the Massachusetts Bay Colony in general, on the other 
hand, were founded by Puritans of the period when the 
Puritan party still remained within the Church of England. 
Yet the great distance from the mother country practically 
forced these churches too to enter a separate existence al- 
most from the start, and thus the churches of both colonies 
were Congregational by 1629. 

The belief of these churches, was Calvinism of the strict- 
est sort, and it was long before the slightest tendency 
toward Unitarian views could have been detected. For 
many years only church members had the right to vote, and 
heresy laws, aimed, however, at Catholics and Episco- 
palians, Baptists and Quakers, existed until the time of the 
American Revolution.” In fact, universal belief in the doc- 


1 See page 287. 

2The Colony of Virginia made Unitarianism a capital crime; and 
while Lord Baltimore in 1634 tolerated Protestants in general in 
Maryland, Unitarians there were legally punishable with death, 


392 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


trines of the Westminster Confession was so much taken 
for granted that it was not demanded even upon joining 
the church, and members were usually admitted upon as- 
senting to a simple, undogmatic covenant, or promise to 
lead a Christian life. The covenant of the church at Salem, 
the first Congregational church to be formed in America, 
may serve as anexample: ‘We covenant with the Lord, and 
one with another, and do’ bind ourselves in the presence of 
God, to walk together in all his ways, according as he is 
pleased to reveal himself unto us in his blessed word of 
truth.” The result was that when the old beliefs gradually 
fell away, it was not necessary for the churches to make any 
change. The same covenant could still be used as before, 
and in some of the churches it is used to this day; while in 
many of them the change was so gradual that it is impossible 


to say just when they ceased to be orthodox and became ,/ 


Unitarian. It was not until heresies became a source of 
real danger that creeds were imposed upon members, in order 
to keep the churches pure in doctrine. 

Strict in belief as the churches had been, they were not 
able long to keep their first intensity of faith. Within a 
generation beliefs began to grow lax, as some of the early 
liberal books from England were received and read, and as 
people compared the teachings of Calvin with those of the 
Bible. Thus in 1650 William Pynchon, one of the founders 
of Springfield, published a little book protesting against 
Calvin’s doctrine of the atonement. The General Court 
was scandalized, and ordered that the book be burned in 
the market place at Boston, and that a refutation be pub- 
lished by one of the ministers. Pynchon was called to ac- 
count and, though he may have escaped the heavy fine 1m- 
posed, he soon afterwards thought it safer to return to 
England. A little later it was complained that there were 


BEGINNINGS IN AMERICA 393 


Arminians and Arians in the colony. Calvinism was begin- 
ning to break down. 

It was not until the eighteenth century, however, that the 
matter began to look serious. Echoes of the controversies 
in the Church of England ! over the doctrine of the Trinity 
were reaching Massachusetts; and the works of Sherlock and 
South, Whiston and Clarke, Tillotson and Emlyn found 
many readers, and influenced not a few. The Arian con- 
troversy at Exeter and in Ireland? was also heard of with 
solemn apprehension. Cotton Mather, leader of the Puritan 
clergy, lamented that Whiston and Clarke were being so 
much read; and the North Church at Boston took measures 
to guard its pulpit from Arminians, Arians, and Socinians. 
Two of the clergy were suspected, and charged with being 
unsound on the Trinity or the atonement. Graduates at 
Harvard proposed to prove that the Trinity is not taught 
in the Old Testament, and appeared to have the sympathy 
of the faculty. English Arians were in correspondence 
with the Massachusetts clergy, and their books and views 
kept slowly spreading. Sermons of the time were often in 
defense of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, or the doctrines 
of Calvin, which were considered in danger. ‘‘Arminian- 
ism” was found to be in the air—a vague term, applied to 
any manner of departure from strict Calvinism; and before 
1750 over thirty ministers were known as having become 
unsound in the faith. 

A little before the middle of the eighteenth century oc- 
curred a religious movement which caused the beginning of 
a split in the churches. The Great Awakening, one of the 
most remarkable revivals of religion in Christian history, 
began in western Massachusetts under the preaching of the 


1See Chapter XXIX. 
2See pages 335 f., 339-341. 


394 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Rev. Jonathan Edwards, who must still be reckoned as 
perhaps the greatest theologian America has produced, al- 
though later generations have insisted on remembering him 
chiefly for the lurid way in which he preached the terrible 
fate of “sinners in the hands of an angry God.” The re- 
vival spread far and wide, continued for several years, and 
excited attention even in England. The consequence was 
that in 1740 the Rev. George Whitefield, a young English 
revivalist of the most extraordinary eloquence, was invited 
to come to New England to preach. Everywhere he went 
he preached to crowds too great for the churches to hold 
them, and on Boston Common, it was estimated, to more than 
20,000 at one time. Together with all the good that re- 
sulted from it (from 25,000 to 40,000 were said to have - 
been converted), the revival was marked by great emotional 
excitement, intense fanaticism, narrow bigotry, and extreme 
Calvinism. These things became worse under preachers 
who followed Whitefield. People of education and refine- 
ment were scandalized, and many of the leading clergy felt 
bound to oppose the revivalists and their methods. It was 
no wonder, for Whitefield had spoken of the New England 
clergy as “dumb dogs, half devils and half beasts, spiritually 
blind, and leading people to hell.” He so bitterly attacked 
Harvard and Yale Colleges for their growing liberality, 
that when he made a second visit four years later they op- 
posed him as uncharitable, censorious, a slanderer, deluder, 
and dreamer, and did not invite him to preach before them 
again. The pulpits of many churches also were closed to 
him, and for this he bitterly criticized their ministers. 

This reaction from the Great Awakening cost Edwards 
his pulpit ; while many independent thinkers in pulpit and in 
pew set their faces against the strict Calvinism which he and 
Whitefield had sought to revive. ‘There was as yet no con- 


BEGINNINGS IN AMERICA 395 


troversy about the Trinity, but the orthodox doctrine of the 
atonement was increasingly criticized, ““Armininianism” was 
on the increase, and there was a growing demand for more 
simplicity, reason, and tolerance in religious beliefs. The 
works of the English liberals, both Anglican and Presby- 
terian, were widely read and in good repute; and though to 
counteract their influence Edwards wrote two of his most 
powerful works, he could not stem the tide that kept steadily 
undermining Calvinism. In 1756 an anonymous “Layman” 
at Boston had Emlyn’s Humble Inquiry reprinted, and 
challenged any one to disprove its Arian teachings from the 
Scriptures if he could. It was the first antitrinitarian book 
published in America. In the following year liberals in 
New Hampshire went so far as to revise their catechism 
and soften down its Calvinism. From now on until the 
Revolutionary War the doctrine of the Trinity was more 
and more called in question. Of course there was as yet no 
Unitarianism in America, or hardly even in England; but 
Arian views were becoming fairly common. As early as 
1758 the Rev. John Rogers of Leominster was dismissed 
from his pulpit for disbelieving in the divinity of Christ, 
and several replies to Emlyn’s book had been sent forth. 
Ten years later orthodox ministers were complaining that 
the divinity of Christ was even being laughed at as an- 
tiquated and unfashionable, and was neglected or disbelieved 
by a number of the Boston ministers, and that the heresy 
was rapidly spreading. 

Out of this ferment of religious thought before the Revolu- 
tion four names rise above others as leaders in our movement 
—Arians, not Unitarians, yet rightly to be regarded as the 
advance heralds of the Unitarian movement, and hence 
deserving especially to be remembered. First of these is 
Dr. Charles Chauncy, minister of the First Church, Boston, 


396 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


for sixty years, 1727--1787. As a patriot he was ardent for 
the cause of the colonies, and as a minister he had led the 
opposition to Whitefield and his revivalism. His favorite 
authors were the English liberals, he corresponded with 
English Arians, and he was one of the first in America to 
preach against the doctrine of eternal punishment. A 
bolder thinker and writer was Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, min- 
ister of the West Church, Boston, from 1747 to 1766, for 
his outspoken stand against all oppression called “‘the father 
of civil and religious liberty in Massachusetts and 
America.” Even at the beginning of his ministry he was 
known for so much of a heretic that the Boston ministers 
would not assist in ordaining him, and they never admitted 
him to their Association. He went his way little heeding, 
corresponded with English Arians and read their books, with 
pungent phrases held up the doctrines of Calvinism to scorn, 
expressed his doctrinal views without disguise or timidity, 
opposed the use of creeds on principle, preached against the 
Trinity in 1753, and two years later urged in print the 
strict unity of God. As he was the first preacher in 
America to come out squarely in speech and in print against 
the doctrine of the Trinity, and as his people heartily 
supported him, and as all his successors in the pulpit held 
similar views, it may fairly be said that the West Church 
was the earliest church in America to abandon Trinita- 
rianism. 

Another minister who during his unparalleled pastorate 
of almost seventy years at Hingham had great influence 
in spreading liberal views in a quiet way was Dr. Ebenezer 
Gay. Although he did not come out boldly like Mayhew, 
who had studied under him and been influenced by his in-. 
timate friendship, he strongly opposed the use of creeds, 


BEGINNINGS IN AMERICA 397 


and is said to have ceased to believe in the Trinity by soon 
after the middle of the century. The same is said of his 
neighbor, the Rev. Lemuel Briant of North Braintree (now 
Quincy). Briant had graduated from Harvard at seven- 
teen, was a bold and fearless thinker, expressed himself with 
vigor, and was an intimate friend of Mayhew. While yet 
in his twenties he preached against Calvin’s doctrine a 
sermon of great boldness, which made him a marked man, 
and brought upon him many attacks. He was charged with 
being not only Arminian but Socinian, and his opponents 
had a council of churches called to consider the complaints 
against him; the final result of which was that his church, 
after investigating the case for themselves, supported him 
strongly. This was in 1753, and is the first clear case of 
a church formally taking the liberal position. Though the 
doctrine of the Trinity was not involved in this action, the 
church at Quincy ever afterwards remained on the liberal 
side. | 

Though the conservatives regarded them with grave ap- 
prehension, the liberal views of these and other ministers 
were well known, and no particular attempt was made to 
conceal them. They were simply the progressives in the 
Congregational Church, in which there was as yet not the 
remotest thought of a division, though liberal views were 
progressing rapidly and spreading far. The American 
Revolution for a time checked the progress of the movement 
by diverting men’s thoughts from question of theology to 
those of patriotism, though even then, with orthodox vigi- 
lance against heresy for a time relaxed, influence came from 
an unexpected quarter. For Priestley and Price,’ the latter 
a strong Arian, and the former by now a decided Unitarian, 


1 See Chapter xxxii, and page 355, 


398 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


were outspoken in behalf of the colonies, and so to a less 
marked degree were Lindsey and many of the liberal Eng- 
lish Dissenters ; * and along with their political writings their 
religious works were brought over from England, and were 
the more attentively read as being the words of friends of 
America. Although they went too far for most of the New 
England liberals, on a few of them they produced a lasting 
impression; and thus they advanced the outposts of the 
liberal movement yet further. 

Thus far, as we have noted, none of the Congregational 
ministers or churches was Unitarian, or would have been at 
all willing to go further than Arianism. Hence it happened 
that the first American church to take a distinct position 
and make its belief and form of worship positively Unita- 
rian was not Congregational but Episcopal. King’s Chapel, 
Boston, established in 1686 as the first Episcopal church 
in New England, found itself at the end of the Revolution 
without a minister, or any hope of securing one from Eng- 
land. It therefore invited a young layman, James Freeman, 
in 1783 to conduct its worship, and to preach when in- 
clined. The views of Samuel Clarke? were widespread in 
America, and the Athanasian Creed had never been popular 
here, so that from the start Freeman was given leave to 
omit it. It was at about this time that an Episcopal clergy- 
man of Salem, when asked why he still read the Creed if he 
did not believe it, replied, “I read it as if I did not believe 
it.” Indeed, when the American Episcopal Church came to 
organize after the Revolution, it was at first proposed 
thoroughly to revise the Prayer Book, omitting among other 


1 At least three of this group were made Doctors of Divinity be- 
fore or during the Revolution by the orthodox colleges of Brown, 
Princeton, and Yale, 

2 See page 325, 


BEGINNINGS IN AMERICA 399 


things both the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds; and 
there was for a time a prospect that this would become the 
liberal Church of America.’ 

It was not long before Freeman began to feel uneasy 
about other parts of the liturgy, especially those relating 
to the Trinity. He reported his difficulties to his people, 
and proposed to resign. ‘They asked him rather to preach 
a series of sermons on the subject, and the result of his doing 
so was that most of them accepted his views. An English 
Unitarian minister, William Hazlitt, who was at that time 
visiting Boston, gave him much light, and showed him a 
copy of Lindsey’s revised Prayer Book; and not long after- 
wards the proprietors of the Chapel voted to follow Lindsey’s 
example, and omitted from their liturgy all references to the 
Trinity, and all prayers to Christ.” Thus in 1785 King’s 
Chapel, though it did not become Unitarian in name, became 
in fact a Unitarian church nearly a generation before other 
liberal churches in New England would own that name or 
adopt really Unitarian views. Freeman had not meant to 
withdraw from the Episcopal Church, a considerable number 
of whose clergy sympathized with him; but he could now find 
no bishop willing to seem to approve his course by ordain- 
ing him, and hence he had to be ordained as a minister by 
his own congregation in 1787. Upon this, other Episcopal 
clergymen in New England went as far as they were able 
toward excommunicating him, and thus his relations with 
their church came to an end. He later had an active cor- 
respondence with Priestley, Lindsey, and Belsham, and cir- 
culated their works; but though some of the more liberal 


1The Nicene Creed was retained in the Prayer Book as finally 
adopted in 1786, because the English bishops insisted on that before 
they would consecrate bishops for the new Church; but the Athanasian 
Creed was abandoned by almost unanimous desire. See page 315n. 
2The Apostles’ Creed was not omitted until 1811. 


400 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


ministers sympathized with him, he had little immediate effect 
upon the liberal movement in the Congregational churches. 

At almost the same time a clear movement toward Unita- 
rian views was taking place at Salem. This town was 
largely devoted to commerce with India, and most of the 
men in the three oldest parishes were connected with the 
foreign trade. Their contact with high-minded men in the 
Orient made them disbelieve Calvin’s doctrine that human 
nature apart from Christ is totally depraved, and thus they 
were prepared for more liberal teaching. In this direction 
they readily followed the lead of their ministers. Of these, 
the Rev. John Prince of the First Church, like Priestley much 
given to scientific experiments, read and circulated English 
Unitarian books. Like him, Dr. Thomas Barnard of the 
North Church avoided controverted doctrines in his pulpit; 
but when one of his orthodox parishioners observing this said 
to him, “Dr. Barnard, I never heard you preach a sermon 
on the Trinity,” he promptly replied, “No; and you never 
will.’ The Rev. William Bentley (Freeman’s college class- 
mate) of the East Church was more outspoken. From the 
beginning of his ministry in 1783 he sympathized with the 
views of Priestley and other English Unitarians, and he 
openly preached them in 1791, earlier than any one else in 
New England except Freeman; and his church was prac- 
tically Unitarian almost as early as King’s Chapel. The 
influence of English Unitarianism was also felt in Maine. In 
1792 the rector of the Episcopal Church at Portland, having 
become convinced by the writings of Priestley and Lindsey, 
sought to reform its liturgy as Freeman had done; and 
when influential persons opposed this, the majority of the 
congregation withdrew with their rector and formed a 
separate Unitarian church, which continued for several 
years, as did a similar movement at Saco. 


BEGINNINGS IN AMERICA 401 


At Boston the movement proceeded more slowly. While 
the ministers there had generally given up much of their 
Calvinism, they liked the teaching of Priestley perhaps even 
less; for they were not Unitarians, as the term was then 
understood, but Arians, since they still looked upon Christ 
as a divine being far above man, inspired of God, sinless, 
and an object of religious faith. However, the doctrines of 
the Trinity and the deity of Christ were being called in 
question more and more. The trinitarian doxology was 
falling out of use. Emlyn’s book was again reprinted, and 
made new converts. Dr. Belknap of the Federal Street 
Church issued in 1795 a hymn-book which omitted all trinita- 
rian hymns. Confessions of faith, and doctrinal examina- 
tions of ministers at their ordination, began to be opposed 
and disused. There was no religious controversy, for the lib- 
erals would not allow themselves to be drawn into one, and 
they themselves avoided preaching on disputed points; yet 
by the end of the century only one minister at Boston, only 
two in Plymouth County, and only three in eight of those 
east of Worcester remained trinitarian; while at Harvard 
College all the talented young men were said to be Unita- 
rians, and orthodox views were said to be generally ridiculed. 
It began to look as though Massachusetts Congregational- 
ism were to become a simple, undogmatic form of faith, 
which laid little stress upon creeds, and left each person 
free to be as liberal as he pleased, while all together strove 
to cultivate reverent, positive Christian character. 

The conservatives, however, were not willing to have it rest 
thus, but wished to lay strong emphasis upon the doctrines 
which their fathers had held. Even before the Revolution 
warning voices had begun to be raised against departing 
from the old faith, and from about 1790 they had grown 


more frequent. A new revival of Calvinism broke out, like 


402 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


a belated echo of the Great Awakening, and with much the 
same sort of result. For its fresh insistence upon the 
Trinity and the deity of Christ only made many realize how 
far they had departed from these doctrines, as the former 
revival had made them realize how far they had departed 
from the sterner doctrines of Calvin. The liberal cause now 
gained strength faster than ever before, and feeling fresh 
assurance the liberals began to reprint more English books 
to spread liberal views, to print new ones of their own, and 
to introduce hymn-books without the familiar trinitarian 
hymns and doxologies. In another quarter also the early 
Universalists were attacking the doctrine of eternal pun- 
ishment, and their leader, the Rev. Hosea Ballou, published 
in 1805 a Treatise on the Atonement which was (unless we 
except the brief reference in Mayhew’s book’) the first by 
an American writer to deny the doctrine of the Trinity. 
Liberal views of Christianity seemed everywhere to be in 
the air. 

The movement also spread into Connecticut, although 
here it was soon checked because the churches there, unlike 
those in Massachusetts, were organized into “‘consociations,” 
which had the power of deposing a minister whose beliefs 
were not considered sound, even though his own congregation 
might wish to keep him.” Hence when the Rev. John Sher- 
man of Mansfield, who had adopted the views of Priestley 
and Lindsey, made them known to his people, he was prac- 
tically forced to leave them although they desired him to 
stay. This led him to publish in that same year (1805) a 
book on One God in One Person Only, which was the first 
full defense of Antitrinitarianism to come from an Ameri- 

1See page 396. 


2 Unitarianism also disqualified one for public office in Connecticut, 
and abridged his rights in the courts. 


BEGINNINGS IN AMERICA 403 


can writer. Removing to the western frontier the next 
year, he became the first minister of the liberal church at 
Oldenbarnevelt, N. Y., which has been already referred to.’ 
Five years later his friend, the Rev. Abiel Abbot of Cov- 
entry, also fell under suspicion of heresy, and was similarly 
forced from his parish. With one exception, that of 
Brooklyn (1817), these are the only churches in Connect- 
icut in which Antitrinitarianism gained any footing at the 
time when it was rapidly spreading in Massachusetts; and 
those who felt oppressed by the strict orthodoxy of the Con- 
gregational churches mostly sought the freer fellowship of 
the Episcopal Church. 

In Pennsylvania, Unitarianism started quite independ- 
ently of the liberal movement among the Congregationalists 
in Massachusetts. In 1783 the Rev. William Hazlitt, an 
English Unitarian minister who had strongly sympathized 
with the colonists during the late war, came to America 
hoping to find a settlement. It was he that encouraged 
Freeman in the action he took at King’s Chapel.* Though 
he failed to find a pulpit, and had at length to return to 
England, he preached at various places from Maryland to 
Maine, including Philadelphia, where he found a number of 
English Unitarians living and in 1784 reprinted a number 
of Priestley’s tracts. These doubtless helped pave the way 
for a church there. When Priestley reached America in 
1794,° though he was heartily welcomed as a distinguished 
man of science and friend of America, his religious opinions 
were dreaded, and he was nowhere invited by the ministers 
to preach save at Princeton. Even from the liberals at . 
Boston no word of welcome came to him in his exile. He 

1See page 389. 


2See page 399. 
3 See page 366. 


404 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


found, however, many not connected with the existing ortho- 
dox churches who would have welcomed Unitarian preach- 
ing. He was thus invited to establish a church at New 
York, and for a time he cherished a scheme for getting min- 
isters sent out from England to gather congregations there 
and at Philadelphia. Upon settling at Northumberland 
he founded a church in 1794, which must be called the first 
in America both to hold the Unitarian faith and to bear the 
- Unitarian name.t| Many English Unitarians came to Amer- 
ica soon after the Revolution, and there was a considerable 
group of them at Philadelphia, where they had made an un- 
successful attempt to settle a minister of their faith in 1792. 
In 1796, however, while Priestley was visiting there he en- 
couraged them to organize a church which should hold ser- 
vices with lay preachers. The members were all English 
Unitarians, mostly young men, and they maintained lay ser- 
vices with some interruption until they were able, in 1812, 
with the aid of English friends, to erect the first Unitarian 
church building in America.? Their first regular minister 
was not settled until 1825. 

In New England after the Revolution liberal tendencies 
in the Congregational churches kept steadily growing. 
Thus at Worcester in 1785 the liberals in the First Church 
withdrew and formed a new society with Aaron Bancroft, 
then an Arian, as their minister. At Taunton in 1792 the 
orthodox withdrew and formed a new church because the 
First Church was controlled by liberals. In Plymouth a 


1 Karly in this same year an English layman, John Butler, held re- 
ligious services at New York, and a Unitarian church is said to have 
been organized; but after three months he fell ill, and no more is heard 
of it. 

2 When the church was incorporated in 1813, the junior minister of 
King’s Chapel strongly urged them not to use the obnoxious name 
Unitarian, but they did not regard the advice. 


BEGINNINGS IN AMERICA 405 


similar division took place in 1800. At Fitchburg two 
years later his strong Calvinism caused the dismissal of the 
Rev. Samuel Worcester, later to become a leading opponent 
of the Unitarians. Nevertheless in most places the liberals 
could not easily be identified as such, for they had engaged 
in no controversy, had formed no party, and had neither 
platform, policy nor leader. Though they no longer ad- 
hered to the old Calvinism of their fathers, they agreed 
upon hardly any new position except disbelief in the Trinity. 
Generous toleration of difference in beliefs existed; and 
although, in order to keep liberal views from spreading fur- 
ther, some of the churches now began to require their mem- 
bers to assent to orthodox creeds, except for a few such in- 
stances as have been named above, the two wings of the Con- 
gregational Church still livea together in harmony as of old. 
This was the situation at the end of the eighteenth century ; 
but the nineteenth century was still very young when this 
peace was destroyed by a period of sharp controversy of 
the conservatives against the liberals, which was to divide 
the Congregational Church, and to force the Unitarians to 
form a separate denomination. That unhappy story will 
form the theme of the next chapter. 


CHAPTER XXXV 


THE UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY IN 
AMERICA, 1805-1835 


The last chapter told how during more than half a cen- 
tury the Congregational churches of Massachusetts were 
slowly and almost imperceptibly growing more liberal in 
belief. During much of the time the conservatives noted 
this fact with growing apprehension, though they were able 
to point to little or nothing definite enough to furnish a 
point for attack; for the liberals were content to let the old 
beliefs fade away without notice, and preferred to confine 
their preaching to the essentials of practical Christianity 
as shown in life and character. It was not until 1805 that 
an event took place which convinced the conservatives that 
their fears that the churches were becoming honeycombed 
with heresy were but too well founded; and this event took 
place not in any church, but in Harvard College. 

The college had been founded by the Puritans in 1636 
primarily to train up educated ministers for their churches ; 
and among its endowments was one given in 1721 for a pro- 
fessorship in divinity. The donor, a liberal English mer- 
chant named Thomas Hollis, whose intimate friends and 
advisers had been on the liberal side of the Salters’ Hall 
controversy,’ had provided that the incumbent should be “of 
sound and orthodox” belief; while a supplementary legacy 
for the same chair required explicit acceptance of a conserv- 


1 See page 336. 
406 


| 
CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 407 


ative creed. In 1803 this chair fell vacant, and for more 
than a year no election was had because the liberals and the 
conservatives, being evenly balanced, could not agree upon a 
candidate. The liberals favored the Rev. Henry Ware of 
Hingham; while the orthodox, charging that he was a Uni- 
tarian, opposed him. The opposition was led by Dr. 
Jedidiah Morse ' of Charlestown, who had for fifteen years 
been the sole public defender of the doctrine of the Trinity 
in the vicinity of Boston, and who now insisted that a Cal- 
vinist should be chosen. At length the liberals gained the 
majority and elected Ware in 1805. This showed that the 
liberal party were now in control of the college, and the 
fact was soon further emphasized by the appointment of a 
hberal president and several liberal professors. 

The orthodox, thoroughly aroused at finding their worst 
fears realized, and seeing that henceforth their young min- 
isters were to be under not orthodox but liberal teachers, 
now opened what might be called a “thirty years’ war,” 
which was to end in one hitherto united church being divided 
into two sects bitterly opposing each other. Dr. Morse 
founded the Panoplist magazine, in which he carried on an 
aggressive warfare against the liberals, attacking them in- 
cessantly, and urging them, if they disbelieved in the Trinity, 
to come out and say so openly. ‘Though their views had long 
been well enough known, and had not been concealed, they did 
not accept his challenge. Dr. Morse next exerted himself 
to establish at Andover a theological seminary which should 
remain forever orthodox, for its constitution required 

1 He deserves to be remembered as “the father of American geog- 
raphy,” and as father also of S. F. B. Morse, inventor of the electric 
telegraph. After his narrow Calvinism had led nearly half of his 
congregation to withdraw and form a liberal church in 1815, the rest 


of them tired of him and let him go; while his son later became a 
radica] Unitarian, . 


408 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the professors every five years to renew their subscription 
to a creed which was perpetually to remain “entirely 
and identically the same, without the least alteration, 
addition, or diminution.”* The Andover Seminary was 
opened for instruction in 1808, and henceforth became the 
chief place for the training of orthodox ministers; while in 
1821 an orthodox college was also founded at Amherst to 
offset the liberal tendencies of Harvard. 

Already in 1802 the conservative ministers, led by Dr. 
Morse, though in the face of strong opposition, had sought 
to strengthen the cause of orthodoxy by forming a General 
Association on the basis of the Westminster Catechism, thus 
excluding liberals. This was really the beginning of the 
split between them. Two years later an unsuccessful at- 
tempt was made to force the liberals out of the ministers’ 
state convention. In 1807 when Samuel Willard of Deer- 
field, having been refused ordination by one council on ac- 
count of his liberal views, was ordained by another, he and 
his church were outcast by all their orthodox neighbors. 
In 1808, when John Codman was settled over the Second 
Church in Dorchester, he began by announcing that he 
would not exchange pulpits with men of liberal views. This 
was the first move in Massachusetts toward that “exclusive 
policy” which had already been urged in Connecticut two 
years before, and which ere long became general among the 
orthodox, and has largely continued down to this day. At 


1 With the lapse of time this creed became a burden too heavy 
to bear. Some of the professors refused to keep on signing it; others 
were prosecuted for having forsaken it. After the failure of such a 
prosecution in 1890, the creed came to be practically ignored; and in 
1908, after exactly a hundred years of separate existence, the Seminary 
removed to Cambridge and entered into alliance with the Harvard 
Divinity School, which, as the nursery of Unitarian ministers, had for- 
merly been its chief rival. Finally in 1922 the two schools were merged 
into one on an unsectarian basis. 


CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 409 


Boston the next year the orthodox took a strong aggressive 
step by organizing the Park Street Church, whose minister, 
by preaching a sermon “On the Use of Real Fire in Hell,” 
won for the location of his church the name of “Brimstone 
Corner.” 

In individual congregations also lines were being more 
closely drawn. Some of the churches tried to shut out 
heresy by adopting elaborate confessions of faith for their 
members to accept, and thus paved the way for sad divisions 
a little later. In case of contest the side out-voted would 
sometimes separate from the majority. Thus at New Bed- 
ford in 1810 the conservatives withdrew and formed a new 
church. At Sandwich, where the minister, having grown 
strongly Calvinistic, was dismissed from his parish by a small 
liberal majority in 1811, he organized a new church among 
his followers. In 1813 a liberal minority withdrew from 
Codman’s Dorchester church and organized a new one. 
Other such instances occurred within the few years follow- 
ing. 

At the same time, liberal views were spreading faster than 
ever in the Congregational churches, and English Unitarian 
books were reprinted in Boston in increasing number, and 
were widely read. ‘The Rev. Noah Worcester, a country 
minister of New Hampshire, influenced by Emlyn and other 
English writers, published in 1810 a little book called Bible 
News, which was Arian. For this his brother ministers bit- 
terly attacked him, maligned his personal character, and 
caused him to lose his pulpit; but he at once found friends 
among the liberal ministers of Boston, served the liberal 
cause well, and later won enduring fame as the founder of 
the peace movement in America. 

As for the liberal ministers, although by 1812 there were 
at least a hundred of them, only Freeman at King’s Chapel 


410 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


and Bentley at Salem were really Unitarian in belief. Of 
the rest only one or two had ever preached a sermon 
against the Trinity; and while they had generally ceased to 
hold that doctrine, yet they had not reached any wide agree- 
ment as to other points. They knew indeed that they had 
pretty well outgrown their Calvinism, and they acknowl- 
edged only the authority of Scripture; but their main em- 
phasis was on the practical virtues of Christian life, and 
their main opposition was to narrowness of spirit and bond- 
age to creeds, while for the rest they advocated Christian 
charity, open-mindedness, and tolerance. They were most 
of them Arian in belief, and so strongly opposed to what 
was then known as Unitarianism that when it had been 
charged that Professor Ware was a Unitarian, the charge 
was indignantly resented as a calumny. In fact, they did 
not regard themselves as heretics at all, for they knew that 
their views were widely held both in the Church of England 
and among the English Dissenters. The Congregational 
Church was still broad enough to hold both conservatives 
and liberals; and of the nine old congregations at Boston 
eight had grown liberal, while the ninth remained orthodox 
by only the narrowest margin. 

All the while that things were in this uncertain state, Dr. 
Morse in the Panoplist kept calling on the liberals to admit 
that in important respects they had departed far from the 
faith of their fathers. They stedfastly refused to accept 
his challenge, for they disliked controversy, and they had no 
mind to champion special doctrines or to be set off into a 
separate party. They stood on their rights as free mem- 
bers of Congregational churches, and did not feel under any 
obligation to report to Dr. Morse or ask his leave. 

But now something unexpected occurred which forced the 
issue. Three years earlier Belsham in London had published 


CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 411 


a life of Lindsey. It contained a chapter on the progress 
of Unitarianism in New England, quoting letters from Dr. 
Freeman and others giving an inside view of the liberal 
movement at Boston, and reporting that most of the Boston 
clergy were Unitarian. Dr. Morse at length discovered the 
book in 1815 and promptly reprinted this chapter, giving 
it the title, American Unitarianism. It created a tre- 
mendous sensation, and ran through five editions in as many 
months. Dr. Morse’s charge seemed to be proved true: the 
liberals were Unitarians after all. The Panoplist followed 
up the exposure in a severe review, charging that the lib- 
erals were secretly scheming to undermine the orthodox 
faith, and were hypocrites for concealing their true beliefs ; 
and that the orthodox ought therefore at once to separate 
from those who, since they denied the deity of Christ, could 
not be considered Christians at all. 

The name Unitarian stuck, as Dr. Morse meant that it 
should, for it was then an odious name, and it has stuck 
ever since; but it was not fairly given. For the writers of 
the letters referred to had used it simply to denote disbelief 
in the Trinity ; while as then commonly understood it meant 
such beliefs as those of Priestley and Belsham, who held that 
Jesus was in all respects a fallible human being, together 
with certain philosophical views which were abhorrent to 
the Boston liberals. The Panoplist, however, insisted that 
they were Unitarians in Belsham’s sense of the word. The 
liberal ministers of Boston were outraged at such misrepre- 
sentation of their views, and they felt that the slander must 
not be let pass without responsible denial. The answer 
was soon forthcoming in the form of an open letter to the 
Rey. Samuel C. Thacher of the New South Church, from 
his friend, the Rev. Wiliam Ellery Channing. Though 
Channing was but thirty-five, he had been for a dozen years 


412 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the beloved and honored minister of the Federal Street 
Church, and of late had come to be regarded as the leader 
of the Boston liberals; and he was destined at length to be 
the most distinguished of all American Unitarians. Though 
a semi-invalid, he had a remarkable charm of voice, manner, 
and character. In his earlier ministry he had been a mod- 
erate Calvinist, had been on friendly terms with Dr. Morse, 
and had preached the sermon at Codman’s ordination; but 
he had never believed the doctrine of the Trinity, and had 
never made a secret of his views. He held that Christ, 
though less than God, was far above man, a sinless being, 
and the object of religious trust and love. In short, he was 
an Arian. 

Always shrinking from controversy, Channing could yet 
speak out strongly when he must; and in this letter he now 
indignantly denied the Panoplist’s charges. He admitted 
that his brethren disbelieved in the Trinity, and in that 
sense alone were Unitarians; though they preferred to call 
themselves liberal Christians, or rational Christians, or 
catholic Christians; while they were wholly out of sympathy 
with the views of Priestley and Belsham, and were nearer 
to the Calvinists than to them. Most of them were Arians, 
some were not clear as to their views, and hardly one could 
accept Belsham’s creed, though to believe with him was no 
crime. Their views had not been concealed: Dr. Morse 
and others had long known them. But the disputed doc- 
trines had been kept out of their pulpits as unprofitable, 
and had been treated as though they had never been heard 
of. Such was his answer; and in conclusion he urged that it 
would be a great wrong to Christianity, and a great injustice 
to individuals, to create a division in the church by shutting 
any out of it as not Christians simply because they held 
more liberal views of scripture teaching than did the others. 


CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 413 


The controversy was continued on the orthodox side by 
Dr. Worcester of Salem, whose two brothers had already 
suffered persecution in New Hampshire for their Arianism,’ 
and who was himself doubtless still smarting over his own 
dismissal from his Fitchburg church.*? Three letters were 
published on each side, and several other writers also took 
a hand in the discussion. Dr. Worcester picked flaws in 
Channing’s letter, pressed the Panoplist’s charges, and urged 
that the differences between the orthodox and the liberals 
were too serious to be longer ignored, and that the two must 
part company. Channing replied that in the essential part 
of Christian faith, which was that Jesus is the Christ, they 
were agreed, and that any minor differences did not vitally 
matter. The controversy ran for half a year, and ended in 
the opening of a permanent breach between the two wings 
of Massachusetts Congregationalists. The orthodox were 
made more than ever determined in their attitude; while the 
Unitarians (as they were henceforth known) began to 
abandon their policy of reserve and to speak out plainly 
also against other doctrines of Calvinism, and their views 
spread accordingly. 

Before and during this controversy Dr. Morse and his 
strict Calvinist friends were steadily trying to get the 
Massachusetts churches to form “‘consociations,”’ with power 
to depose heretical ministers as Sherman and Abbot had 
been deposed in Connecticut.? But both liberals and mod- 
erate Calvinists resisted this plan as dangerous to liberty 
of conscience, so that after some years’ effort the scheme 
was dropped. In an increasing number of churches,. how- 
ever, creeds were adopted to keep heretics from becoming 


1See page 409. 
2See page 405. 
3 See page 402 f. 


41 4 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


members, and in a few cases where the orthodox could not 
control the situation as they wished, they withdrew and 
formed separate churches. More and more of the orthodox 
ministers also refused to include in their list of monthly 
pulpit exchanges any who were suspected of being Unita- 
rians ; so that while there was still, indeed, but a single de- 
- nomination of Congregationalists, its two wings were stead- 
ily drawing further apart. Thus things went on for a few 
years, with the orthodox getting further away from the 
liberals, though with hope of reconciliation not yet wholly 
despaired of, until two events occurred which proved de- 
cisive. ‘These were Channing’s Baltimore sermon in 1819, 
and the decision of the Dedham case in 1820. We must 
speak of these in turn. 

After the controversy of 1815 the orthodox kept treating 
the Unitarians in the Church with such increasing narrow- 
ness, and kept attacking their beliefs with such increasing 
bitterness, that at length Channing, peaceable as he was, 
felt bound to strike a telling blow in return. The oppor- 
tunity to do so came in 1819, when he was asked to preach 
the sermon at the ordination of Jared Sparks as minister of 
the church lately established at Baltimore, the first exten- 
sion beyond New England of the liberal movement in Massa- 
chusetts. In this sermon he boldly took the aggressive 
against the orthodox, taking up the distinguishing doctrines 
of Unitarians one by one, showing that they were sup- 
ported by both Scripture and reason, and holding up to 
pitiless attack the contrasted doctrines of orthodoxy in 
all their nakedness. Probably no other sermon ever 
preached in America has had so many readers and so great 
an influence. It put the orthodox at once on the defensive. 
They complained that Channing had misrepresented their 
beliefs and had injured their feelings by his harsh state- 


CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 415 


ments. Professor Moses Stuart of Andover wrote a whole 
book to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against Chan- 
ning’s attack, though in it he admitted that he did not know 
clearly what the doctrine meant; and he even brought upon 
himself from a Presbyterian source the charge that he too 
was tending toward Unitarianism. Channing himself said 
no more, but Professor Andrews Norton of Harvard re- 
newed the attack upon the Trinity with such effect that the 
orthodox withdrew on this point, and were content to lay 
their emphasis henceforth upon the deity of Christ. 

Professor Leonard Woods of Andover now came to the 
defense of the other doctrines which Channing had attacked, 
and debated them back and forth with Professor Ware of 
Harvard for three years, in a printed controversy which 
ran to over eight hundred pages. This ‘“Wood’n-Ware 
controversy,” as it was called, was carried on in fine spirit 
on both sides, and it made clear that even the orthodox had 
drifted further away from the old doctrines than they had 
yet acknowledged or realized. Nevertheless they continued 
to pursue more widely than ever their policy of exclusion of 
Unitarians and separation from them; while the Unitarians, 
who had had their views so clearly stated and so ably de- 
fended by Channing, now first fairly realized where they 
stood, and rallied to their standard with enthusiasm. The 
division between the two wings had become practically 
complete. 

In the unhappy division that took place at this time, con- 
gregations were split in two, and even families were divided 
against themselves. But the question now arose, whose 
should be the church property when Unitarians and orthodox 
drew apart? This was the question involved in the Dedham 
case. In order to understand the matter, one must remem- 
ber that in the Massachusetts towns there had long been 


416 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


two religious organizations. The “parish,” or “society,” 
consisted of all the male voters of the town organized to 
maintain religious worship, which they were bound by law 
to support by taxation. The ‘“‘church” on the other hand 
consisted only of those persons within the parish (generally 
a small minority) who had made a public profession of their 
religious faith, and had joined together in a serious inner 
circle for religious purposes, and were admitted to the ob- 
servance of the Lord’s Supper. The church members were 
on the whole (though not exclusively) more devout and more 
zealous than the rest of the members of the parish, and a 
large majority of them were usually women. Now by law 
a minister must be elected by vote of the whole parish which 
supported him; but by natural custom it had come to be 
generally expected that he must also be acceptable to the 
church, even if not nominated by it. For generations 
church and parish had generally agreed; though if they did 
not, means were provided for settling the matter through a 
mutual council. But when the controversy arose between 
the orthodox and the Unitarians, disagreements became fre- 
quent and often serious; and in many cases it happened that 
while the majority of the church members wished to settle a 
conservative from Andover, the majority of the parish would 
prefer a liberal man from Harvard, and usually no way of 
compromise could be found. 

This was the situation at Dedham, where the pulpit fell 
vacant in 1818, and the parish voted two to one to settle 
a liberal man, while the church by a small majority voted 
against him. As the parish refused to yield, a majority of 
the church withdrew and formed a new church, taking with 
them the church property, which was in this instance nearly 
enough to support the minister. A lawsuit followed, to de- 
termine which was the real church, and which might hold 


CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 417 


the property, the majority of the church who seceded from 
the parish, or the minority who stayed init. The case was 
bitterly fought, and the Supreme Court of the state at 
length decided in 1820 that seceders forfeited all their rights, 
and that even the smallest minority remaining with the 
parish were still the parish church, and entitled to the church 
property; indeed, that if even the whole church should 
secede it must still leave the church property behind it. 
This legal decision, which would of course apply to any 
similar cases arising elsewhere, aroused among the orthodox 
a storm of indignation so deep and bitter that it has hardly 
subsided after a hundred years. They declared that the 
judge, being a Unitarian, was prejudiced in favor of his 
own party; and for many years they continued to cry out 
against the injustice of the decision, and against what they 
insisted was “‘plunder” of their churches. 

The orthodox losses as the result of the divisions that 
took place were indeed severe. In eighty-one instances the 
orthodox members seceded, nearly 4,000 of them in all, thus 
losing funds and property estimated at over $600,000, not 
to mention the loss of churches which went to the liberal 
side without a division; and they had to build new meeting- 
houses for themselves. They called themselves “the exiled 
churches”; but while there were cases in which the liberal 
majority oppressed the minority and meant to force them 
out, the latter most frequently seceded because they were © 
not permitted, though often but few in number, to impose 
a minister of their choice upon the large majority of those 
who attended the church and supported it by their taxes, 
but to whom he was not acceptable. Nor were the losses 
all on one side. ‘There were at least a dozen cases, first 
and last, in which it was the liberals that seceded, rather 
than listen to the preaching of doctrines which they believed 


418 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 

to be untrue and harmful. There were happily many 
others in which there was no division. Of these the larger 
number remained orthodox, but thirty-nine became liberal 
without division, and often so quietly and gradually that 
no one could have told when the invisible line was crossed. 
Among these latter were twenty out of twenty-five original 
churches, including all the most important ones. In only 
three of the larger towns of eastern Massachusetts did the 
parish remain orthodox, and at Boston only the Old South. 
In several cases the whole church withdrew in a body; in 
others only one or two members were left. At the end of 
the controversy a few over a third of the Congregational 
churches of Massachusetts were found to have become 
Unitarian. 

Although churches kept on separating until as late as 
1840, the greater number of divisions took place in the 
years immediately following the Baltimore sermon and the 
Dedham case decision. The Unitarians were thenceforth, 
against their wish, a separate denomination from the rest 
of the Congregationalists. They found themselves consist- 
ing of 125 churches, mostly within twenty-five miles of 
Boston, though with a few distant outposts at New York, 
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, and Charleston. In 
eastern Massachusetts they had for the time won a sweeping 
victory. The ablest and most eloquent ministers, the lead- 
ers in public life, in education, in literature, were theirs, as 
were the great majority of those of wealth, culture, and 
high social position. In fact, they had quite too much 
prestige for their own good, since they now seemed as a 
church to have little more to strive for. The truth is that it 
was not so much Unitarian doctrines as Unitarian freedom 
that had attracted many of them. Hence, while broad in 
spirit, strongly opposed to sectarianism, and _ liberal, 


CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 419 


though vague, in their beliefs, they were yet conservative in 
almost everything else. But they were generally reverent in 
temper and were earnestly devoted to pure morals and good 
works. The consequence of all this was that they now set- 
tled back complacently, and showed far less zeal in promot- 
ing their cause than did the orthodox; fondly believing that 
without any particular effort on their part Unitarianism 
would ere long sweep the whole country as it had already 
swept eastern Massachusetts. 

The orthodox, on the other hand, were for a time stunned, 
and in acute fear of losing the whole struggle, in which the 
Unitarians had made steady gains since 1815. Their 
champion, Dr. Morse, had gone; their organ, the Panoplist, 
had suspended publication. A strong recruit for their 
cause, however, now came from Connecticut, where the 
spread of Unitarianism had thus far been so successfully 
prevented. Dr. Lyman Beecher, known as the most suc- 
cessful revivalist of his time, and as a powerful and eloquent 
preacher of tremendous earnestness, had with eager interest 
long watched the battle from afar when in 1823 he came to 
Boston to hold revival meetings. He soon revived the faint- 
ing spirits of the orthodox. They began to make fresh 
converts, and many of the wavering were won back from the 
Unitarian camp. Thus the orthodox reaction began. 

When those ministers and churches that had accepted 
Unitarian beliefs found themselves quite excluded from re- 
ligious fellowship with those that held to the old beliefs, it 
became a serious question what they should do. Shut out 
from the orthodox organizations, should they form a new 
denomination, or should they go on separately with no at- 
tempt to hold together or to act together for the interests 
they had in common? The older leaders were much dis- 
posed to go on as they were, and were opposed to forming 


420 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


a new denomination; for they had of late seen quite too much 
of the evils of sectarianism, and they wished no more of 
them. The younger men had less fear and more zeal, real- 
izing that, if they were to do anything at all to help spread 
Christianity in the newer parts of the country, they must 
unite for the purpose; while if they did nothing in the matter 
they would be simply abandoning the new field wholly to 
orthodoxy and to beliefs which they felt to be untrue and 
hurtful. In that case, liberal Christianity might become 
extinct within a generation. 

‘Since the beginning of the century, indeed, four or five 
organizations had been formed to promote the spread of 
Christianity in various ways, in which, though they were 
quite unsectarian, only the liberals had taken part; and 
half a dozen publications, notably The Christian Register, 
weekly (1821), and the Christian Examiner, quarterly 
(1824), had been founded, in which the liberals had ex- 
pressed their views, and had carried on controversy with 
the orthodox. But now that separation had come it was 
felt that something more was needed. It was ten or twelve 
young ministers lately graduated from the Harvard Divinity 
School that took the lead in the matter, and after long 
discussion and much opposition joined with a few laymen 
who shared their views, and in the vestry of Dr. Channing’s 
church organized the American Unitarian Association,’ “to 
diffuse the knowledge and promote the interests of pure 
Christianity.” Dr. Channing gave only passive approval 
to the move, and declined to be President of the new Associa- 
tion. Boston Unitarians generally were lukewarm. Dur- 
ing its first year only sixty-five of them joined the Associa- 


1 There were two meetings, May 25 and 26, 1825. Some weeks passed 
before it was discovered that on May 26, by an extraordinary coin- 
cidence, Unitarians in London had organized the British and Foreign 
Unitarian Association. See page 378. 


CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 421 


tion, and only $1,300 was raised to carry on its work. Yet 
it set to work with energy and skill, began publishing 
Unitarian tracts and circulating them in large numbers, and 
sent a scout into the West who came back reporting many 
promising fields where Unitarian churches would be heartily 
welcomed. Missionary preachers were sent afield, a mis- 
sionary to the city poor was employed, a Sunday-school 
Society was organized (1826), and especial efforts were 
made to spread Unitarian literature. Yet so afraid were 
the churches of losing some of their liberty in the bonds of 
a new sect, that for twenty-five years only from a third 
to a half of them would contribute to the work of the 
Association, which thus had only from $5,000 to $15,000 a 
year to spend. Its work could grow but slowly until the 
timid conservatism of an older generation could be replaced 
by the missionary earnestness of a younger one. 

Dr. Beecher’s revival meetings at Boston in 1823 had re- 
vived orthodoxy for a time; but it was still on the defensive, 
and now the Unitarians had organized for aggressive effort. 
Beecher was glad therefore to accept a call to a church just 
established in Hanover Street, which had been organized on 
a basis designed to prevent it from ever calling a liberal min- 
ister. Coming to Boston to live in 1826 he at once began 
a revival which lasted. five years. It often crowded his 
church, and it stirred up the drowsy Unitarians to unaccus- 
tomed activity. He took a bold aggressive stand, attacking 
Unitarian beliefs as unscriptural, and the results of them as 
unfavorable to true religion. Some years before this a Pres- 
byterian clergyman preaching at Baltimore had declared 
that Unitarian preachers were “most acceptable to the gay, 
the fashionable, the worldly minded, and even the. licentious” ; 
and another in New York had charged that religion and 
morals had alarmingly declined, and vice had increased at 


422 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Boston since the spread of Unitarianism there, and he had 
insinuated that even the Unitarian ministers were men of 
loose morals and little piety. Dr. Beecher did not venture to 
go so far as this; but he and those that followed his leadership 
repeatedly charged that the effect of Unitarianism was to 
make its followers less earnest in their religion, less faithful 
in their religious habits, and less strict in their moral 
standards. It was declared that they had been steadily 
giving up one doctrine of the Christian faith after another, 
until little was now left. As their views of the inspira- 
tion of the Bible were changing, it became common to call 
Unitarians infidels; while it was often charged, and as often 
denied, that by accepting the doctrine of the Universalists 
they were encouraging men to sin by taking away their fear 
of eternal punishment. 

Perhaps the charge that hurt the Unitarians most, and 
had the most truth in it, was that whereas the orthodox 
were deeply in earnest about their religion, zealous, self- 
denying, and full of missionary spirit, the Unitarians were 
lukewarm, often indifferent to their church, lax in religious 
observances, and opposed to missions. Indeed, the first 
Treasurer of the American Unitarian Association felt these 
things so keenly that he resigned his office in discouragement 
and went back to orthodoxy. This became the occasion of 
a pamphlet controversy which attracted much attention on 
both sides. Although the Unitarians preferred to meet the 


1The early Universalists, by denying any future punishment what- 
ever, had seemed to be dangerous to good morals by removing the 
chief ground for living a right life here. They were also Trinitarians, 
and on various grounds most Unitarians held them in abhorrence, and 
long kept aloof from them. They soon abandoned the doctrine of the 
Trinity, but it was a long generation before the Unitarians by gradual 
steps had ventured generally to deny eternal punishment. The two 
denominations have long since been closely alike in thought. 


CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 423 


passionate zeal of the orthodox with easy-going self-confi- 
dence, they could not remain silent under such attacks as 
these. They returned blow for blow, calling attention to 
the most repulsive doctrines of Calvinism, until at length 
Dr. Beecher was driven to admit that he too had abandoned 
various doctrines held sacred by the fathers, and in his “new 
Calvinism” had thus taken the same steps which the earlier 
liberals had taken two generations before. 

Dr, Channing in particular felt compelled again to come 
to the defense of Unitarianism in a dedication sermon 
preached at New York in 1826, in which he compared the 
effect of the doctrines of Unitarianism with those of or- 
thodoxy, held that Unitarian Christianity was most favor- 
able to piety, and likened the orthodox doctrine of the 
atonement to a gallows erected at the center of the universe 
for the public execution of a God. This sermon created a 
sensation second only to that at Baltimore, and was never 
forgiven him by the orthodox. The controversies that filled 
the next six or eight years now became more bitter than 
ever before. To keep these alive and push them vigorously 
Dr. Beecher helped found a new periodical, the Spirit of the 
Pilgrims, to take the place of the Panoplist. Quarrels be- 
came angry and personal. Charges of bigotry, and unfair- 
ness, insincerity, hypocrisy, and falsehood, were freely made 
on each side, and many things were said in the heat of 
controversy of which the authors ought to have been, and 
no doubt afterwards were heartily ashamed. Bitterness 
was aroused which still survived after two generations. A 
church dedication, an ordination, or an anniversary was 
seized upon as the occasion for one side or the other to 
proclaim its views. Whatever might be said or printed was 
closely scanned for some point of attack; the worst things 
that could be found said by some hasty spirit on one side 


424 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


would be held up in triumph for criticism by the other in the 
pamphlet war that would follow. The parties often mis- 
understood and sometimes misrepresented each other, and 
would spend page after page in picking at petty flaws 
and inconsistencies, until at length peaceable souls grew dis- 
gusted with the whole business and resolved to cease from 
the fruitless strife. For the whole sad quarrel had done 
much harm and little good to those who engaged in it, and 
to true religion. The only clear result of it all was that the 
orthodox became more fixed in their orthodoxy, and the 
Unitarians more convinced of the truth of their heresy. 
The fiercest quarrels of all arose over divisions in local 
parishes. Of these, that at Groton in 1826 was perhaps 
the most noted. The aged minister of the parish asked for 
a colleague, and an orthodox candidate was heard. The 
church, consisting of only some thirty voting members out 
of a parish of three hundred, called him by a vote of seven- 
teen to eight; but the parish, which had grown liberal by 
three to one, would not approve the choice. The question 
was whether so small a minority should be allowed to im- 
pose upon so large a majority a minister who was dis- 
tasteful to them. The orthodox withdrew, with much bit- 
terness of feeling and complaint of injustice, and formed 
a new church. In the heated contest over this case Dr. 
Beecher took a leading part. In the First Parish at Cam- 
bridge the minister, the venerable Dr. Abiel Holmes (father 
of Oliver Wendell Holmes), joined the orthodox re-action 
which Dr, Beecher was leading so vigorously, and ceased 
to exchange with liberal ministers as he had previously been 
accustomed to do. Two-thirds of the church supported 
their minister in this action, but three-quarters of the much 
larger parish insisted that exchanges be continued as before. 
Neither party to the controversy would yield or compromise, 


CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 425 


and it ended with the dismissal of Dr. Holmes in 1829. 
At Brookfield in 1827, when a liberal majority of the par- 
ish settled a Unitarian minister, all the male members of 
the church but two withdrew, excommunicated those two 
and claimed the church property; but the two members 
remaining organized a new church, went to law, and re- 
covered the property, as in the Dedham case. At Waltham 
in 1825 every member, male and female, of the church 
seceded from the parish, took their minister with them, and 
formed a new church and society. There were many other 
cases similar to these, though less conspicuous. 

These controversies had not died down before a yet more 
heated one arose over the subject of exclusiveness ; for as the 
orthodox regained strength and confidence they grew in- 
creasingly exclusive against the Unitarians, until they at 
length denied them the privilege of their turn in preaching 
the annual sermon before the state convention of Congrega- 
tional ministers to which both belonged. Indeed, there were 
thought to be signs that they meant to close against the 
Unitarians everything in church and state. A young or- 
thodox preacher aroused much attention in 1828 by as- 
serting that though Unitarians formed no more than a 
fourth of the population of the state, they monopolized 
public offices, controlled nine-tenths of the political power, 
and influenced legislation and court decisions in their own 
interest and against the orthodox; and he called upon or- 
thodox voters to remember these things when voting at 
elections. Once more, and for the last time, Channing now 
entered the lists in a memorable sermon before the Legis- 
lature (1830) on Spiritual Freedom. He charged that or- 
thodoxy was using all its power in the way of bigotry and 
persecution to suppress freedom of thought in religion by 
raising the cry of heresy, and that this was in effect a new 


426 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Inquisition; and he uttered a strong protest against such 
a spirit. The orthodox replied that these charges were not 
true, and that it was they that had cause to complain of 
being ridiculed by the Unitarians; that they were given no 
share in public offices and honors, and no positions at 
Harvard University. Professor Stuart called upon Chan- 
ning to withdraw his charges or prove them. Channing him- 
self made no reply, but one of the younger ministers pub- 
lished a whole volume of evidence that for a generation the 
orthodox had tried in every way to oppress the liberal party 
in their churches. Here the matter rested, for the fires of 
controversy had nearly burnt themselves out. Most had 
grown weary of it and disgusted with it. The final act was 
at Salem in 1833, where an orthodox minister in a public 
address attacked Unitarians with personal abuse of a 
violence hitherto unknown, calling them ‘“‘cold-blooded in- 
fidels.” But the controversy had lost its leader with the 
departure of Dr. Beecher ' from Boston in 1832, followed by 
the suspension of the Spirit of the Pilgrims the next year. 
The separation of Church and State in Massachusetts in 
1834 removed the occasion for further controversy over the 
property rights of churches. Moreover, the orthodox were 
becoming involved in a doctrinal controversy within their own 
body, so that probably every one concerned was glad of an 
excuse to cultivate peace. 

The separation of the two bodies was now complete beyond 
hope of reconciliation. The last exchange of pulpits had 
taken place. The two denominations went their different 

1It is interesting to note that though Dr. Beecher had been the 
leading champion of conservative orthodoxy against Unitarianism, he 
himself had to stand trial a few years later for heresy; and that three 
of his seven sons, all of whom were ministers, were well known for 


their liberal views and that one of his grand-daughters became the 
wife of a Unitarian minister, Edward Everett Hale. 


CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA 427 


ways, the Unitarians with about one hundred and twenty- 
five churches,! the orthodox with some four hundred. The 
orthodox had moved further than they fully realized from 
the teachings of Calvin; and the Unitarians further than they 
realized from their original ground. Without being aware 
of it, they were already depending much more on reason 
in religion than on the Bible, and in their views of the 
nature of Christ had gone far toward the position of 
Priestley and Belsham. But though they had now settled 
their final account with orthodoxy, they had even more 
serious accounts to settle with themselves. Those will form 
the subject of the next chapter. 

1 But the Universalist movement which had been growing up at 
about the same time, the Hicksite movement among the Friends from 
1827 on, and the Christian Connection in the West, made the total 


number of churches which had abandoned orthodoxy in the whole 
country much larger than this. 


CHAPTER XXXVI 


AMERICAN UNITARIANISM TRYING TO FIND 
ITSELF: INTERNAL CONTROVERSY AND 
DEVELOPMENT, 1835-1865 


When their long controversy with the orthodox had at 
last come to an end, the Unitarians found themselves but 
poorly equipped for carrying on an efficient and healthy 
life as a religious denomination with a distinct mission of its 
own. Their organization for promoting their common in- 
terests, though now ten years old, was still weak and in- 
efficient, and had fallen far short of winning the support of 
all their churches. Nor had the progress of their thought 
gone much beyond the stage of merely dropping a few of 
the most objectionable doctrines of Calvinism. In their 
churches were many who were there merely because they were 
opposed to orthodoxy, but who had no positive and strong 
convictions in religion, and no earnest devotion to its 
principles. Many who had been bold defenders of Unitari- 
anism so long as it was attacked, relapsed into inactivity 
now that the war against it seemed to be over, thinking that 
its work was done, and that liberal religion would hence- 
forth spread fast enough of itself, without any personal 
effort of theirs. Most of the rank and file, and many of 
even the leaders, were content to settle down and enjoy in 
peace the liberty they had won, with no desire for further 
progress in thought or in organization. This chapter will 


try to show how the denomination was gradually roused out 
428 


éd 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 429 


of this torpor, at length began to think and act for itself, 
and after struggling for thirty years at last found itself, 
realized its mission, and began to gird itself for its proper 
work in the religious life of America. 

The American Unitarian Association had been formed as 
a volunteer organization of a few individuals, who hoped 
in time to enlist the support of the whole denomination in a 
common cause; but they were long disappointed in this hope. 
At a period when the orthodox churches were full of reviv- 
ing life and missionary zeal, and were giving generously for 
their own work though comparatively little for outside 
causes, the Unitarians, while giving with great liberality 
for hospitals, colleges, and all manner of charitable and 
philanthropic work, were giving pitifully small sums to 
spread their own religious faith.t In the first year of the 
Association only four of the churches contributed to its 
funds; and though the number of these steadily increased, 
after fifteen years scarcely more than a third of the churches 
known as Unitarian were doing anything for the organized 
work of their denomination. Several of the largest and 
wealthiest of the Boston churches gave it nothing at all. 
They shrank from sacrificing the least of their freedom by 
joining any organization, they did not care to build up a 
new denomination, and they disliked even a denominational 
name. As late as 1835 the minister of the First Church in 
Boston stated that the word Unitarian had never yet been 
used in his pulpit. 

It was nearly ten years before the Association was able 

1 It is doubtful whether there has ever been a year since the Associa- 
tion was founded in which some individual Unitarian laymen (often 
several individuals) did not give to education or philanthropy more, 
often many times more, than the whole denomination was giving for 


its common work. A single such person is known to have given 
to benevolent objects $150,000 a year for ten successive years, 


430 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


to employ a paid Secretary. Nevertheless those that be- 
lieved in it kept faithfully ahead, and its work and influence 
grew steadily if slowly. For fifteen years or so its efforts 
were devoted mainly to spreading the faith through printed 
tracts. These were issued generally once each month, and 
were circulated at the rate of 70,000 or more a year, and 
they were eagerly read by multitudes who had never heard 
Unitarian preaching. Whenever the funds allowed, preach- 
ers were sent on missionary journeys through the West and 
South. The West was now rapidly filling up with settlers, 
of whom many had gone from New England and longed 
for liberal churches such as they had left behind them. It 
was estimated that two millions of people in the West had 
outgrown orthodox beliefs, and were in danger of falling 
quite away from religion, although they were ready to give 
hearty welcome and strong support to liberal Christianity. 
Year after year the missionary preachers sent out from New 
England would come back reporting how eager people in the 
West and South were to hear Unitarian preaching, how eas- 
ily churches might be established in scores of thriving new 
towns, and how great an opportunity there was to liberalize 
the whole of the new country, if only preachers could be had 
and a little aid be given at the start. But alas, there were 
hardly more ministers than were needed in New England, and 
most of these were reluctant to do pioneer work on the fron- 
tier of civilization; while the funds of the Association were 
too scanty to support them even had they been willing to be 
sent. The missionary spirit was incredibly sluggish, and the 
eastern Unitarians seemed to think that the West and South, 
if left to take their own course, would of themselves soon be- 
come as liberal as Massachusetts. Yet despite all this lazi- 
ness the denomination did steadily grow. A whole series of 
new churches sprang up in such important centers as Cin- 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 431 


cinnati, Louisville, Buffalo, New Orleans, St. Louis, Chicago, 
Mobile, and Syracuse; and by 1840 the one hundred and 
twenty churches with which the denomination started out in 
1825 had increased to two hundred and thirty. Local aux- 
iliaries were formed in more and more of the churches, con- 
tributions slowly increased, a permanent fund began to ac- 
cumulate, and the fear of belonging to a denomination was 
slowly outgrown. 

If the new denomination was slow in settling down to its 
proper work, it was yet slower in adopting any principles 
of thought really different from those of orthodoxy. At 
the end of the Unitarian controversy the Unitarians had, 
it is true, changed their beliefs as to God, Christ, the atone- 
ment, and human nature; yet these might after all be re- 
garded as mere matters of detail. They might still have 
remained no more than a liberal wing of the old church, as 
indeed many of them would have preferred to do. In fact, 
some of them were already beginning to fear that doctrinal 
changes might go too far, and that liberty in religion might 
bring with it more dangers than blessings. They were quite 
satisfied to let reform of doctrines stop where it was, and 
to build a new fence about an orthodox Unitarianism, in 
place of the old one about orthodox Calvinism from which 
they had lately escaped. Though they claimed the right 
of interpreting the Scriptures by reason, they were inclined 
to submit to Scripture authority almost more slavishly than 
the orthodox themselves. 

Now all this happened because of the philosophy that 
both Unitarians and orthodox had long accepted. Both be- 
lieved with John Locke that all our knowledge is gained 
through the physical senses. Even the knowledge of God 
and of religious truth came to us thus. We were justified 
in believing in God and in a future life, therefore, solely 


432 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


because Jesus, who taught these doctrines, wrought miracles 
which men could see, and which proved his teachings to be 
true. This was the chief reason why one should accept the 
Christian religion and follow the precepts of Jesus at all. 
It thus became of the greatest importance for us implicitly 
to accept the Bible and its miracles, since otherwise the 
foundation of our religion would be gone. 

At the time of which we are speaking, however, there were 
beginning to be some, especially of the younger men, who 
were growing more and more dissatisfied with these views of 
truth, and were wishing to carry the reform of theology 
further than merely the reform of a few orthodox doctrines. 
The religion of the day seemed to them dead and mechani- 
cal. They had been much influenced by the writings of 
some of the German philosophers of the past generation, 
and even more by the English writings of Coleridge and 
Carlyle. Soon they were given the nickname Transcenden- 
talists. Transcendentalism was working among many of 
the younger generation in New England like a sort of fer- 
ment, and it showed its influence in various ways. They 
became rebellious against external authority and old tradi- 
tions of thinking and doing. Impatient with the continued 
existence of ignorance, poverty, intemperance, slavery, war, 
and other social ills, they threw themselves eagerly into all 
sorts of reforms and philanthropies that promised improve- 
ment—popular education, normal schools, temperance re- 
form, the anti-slavery movement, woman’s rights, non- 
resistance, communism, vegetarianism, spiritualism, mesmer- 
ism, phrenology—some wise and some foolish, but all of 
them earnestly espoused. They established at Brook Farm 
in 1841 a codperative experiment which combined education 
with agriculture, and became famous though it lasted but 
six years. They published a magazine called the Dial which 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 433 


in its four years’ existence broke new paths in literature. 
They were the first in America to welcome modern criticism 
of the Bible. Their movement was a New England Renais- 
sance. Channing, though not identified with it, was in 
spirit a precursor of Transcendentalism; and most of its 
adherents were Unitarians. 

It is the effect of Transcendentalism upon the religion of 
the Unitarians that most concerns us here. It spread rap- 
idly among the younger ministers. Its leaders declared 
that we are not dependent upon miracles, nor upon Jesus, 
nor upon the Bible, for our knowledge of religious truths ; 
for man is a religious being by nature. Religious truths 
do not have to be proved by miracles or by reasoning; they 
do not come to us from the outside; they arise sponta- 
neously within us, and God reveals them to our own souls 
directly. Hence we do not have to go to past ages and 
ancient prophets for our religion, or to try to reason it out 
to ourselves, or to follow the usual religious traditions. 
We need only to keep our souls open to what God would 
teach us now in our religious intuitions. 

While such thoughts as these had been entertained for 
some time by a handful of the younger ministers, the first 
to attract much attention to them by public utterance was 
Ralph Waldo Emerson in his Divinity School Address. 
Emerson is generally remembered to-day simply as an Amer- 
ican man of letters; but for a number of years he was him- 
self a Unitarian minister. He was descended from eight 
generations of Puritan ministers, and his father, the Rev. 
William Emerson, had been minister of the First Church in 
Boston, and one of the liberals of his time, though he died 
before the division of the churches occurred. After leaving 
the Divinity School, Emerson was for three years and a half 
minister of the Second Church in Boston, from which he 


434 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


resigned in 1832 because he did not feel that he could con- 
scientiously celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the meaning 
then attached to it. Though he still continued for some 
years to preach more or less often, he was never settled over 
another church, but became more and more a lecturer and 
writer. 

In the summer of 1838 Emerson, now rapidly coming into 
fame for his work on the lecture platform, was invited to 
preach the sermon before the graduating class of the Di- 
vinity School. Only a small roomful were present, but the 
address they heard began a new era in American Unitarian- 
ism. He brought his young hearers the message of T'ran- 
scendentalism as applied to religion. He complained that 
the prevailing religion of the day had little life or inspira- 
tion in it because it was forever looking to persons and 
events in the past history of Christianity, rather than lis- 
tening to hear what God has to say to men to-day; and he 
urged them not to exaggerate the person of Jesus, nor to 
attach importance to miracles, as the main elements in re- 
ligion, but to seek the truths of religion within their own 
souls, and to preach to men what God reveals to them there. 
Thus religion should be no longer cold and formal, but a 
vital personal experience. 

There were those that appreciated the message of Emer- 
son’s address at once. ‘Theodore Parker was one of these, 
and he wrote of it, “It was the noblest, the most inspiring 
strain I ever listened to.” Others among the younger min- 
isters were glad to have so earnestly and clearly said in pub- 
lic what they had been vaguely feeling and thinking to them- 
selves. Few who read Emerson’s address to-day will find in 
it anything to shock them, or even much to attract atten- 
tion for its novelty. But the older heads at once saw what 
was involved in his message, and were filled with consterna- 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 435 


tion that young men about to enter the ministry should have 
been given advice which, it was felt, was in danger of under- 
mining their whole Christian faith. The address could not 
be allowed to pass unrebuked. Emerson’s successor at the 
Second Church made haste to say in the Christian Register 
that Emerson was not a representative of the denomination 
nor of many in it, and that he was no longer considered a 
regular minister. The Christian Examiner called the ad- 
dress “neither good divinity nor good sense.” Professor 
Henry Ware, Jr. felt bound to preach in the College chapel 
at the opening of the next term a sermon to counteract 
teachings which he considered denied the personality of God, 
and made worship impossible. Unitarian ministers’ meet- 
ings debated whether Emerson were Christian, pantheist, 
or atheist; and writers in various newspapers attacked him. 

After a year had passed Professor Andrews Norton, who 
had been one of the champions of the liberal party in the 
controversy of twenty years before,’ girded on his armor 
afresh, and in an address before the alumni of the Divinity 
School attacked Emerson’s views as “the latest form of in- 
fidelity.” He solemnly gave warning that since miracles are 
the foundation of Christianity, whoever denies them strikes 
directly at its root; nothing is left of it without them. For 
one to pretend to be a Christian teacher and yet to disbe- 
lieve in them is treachery to God and man; and he ought to 
leave the ministry. To all these attacks Emerson made no 
reply, refusing to be drawn into controversy. But the 
Rey. George Ripley, one of the younger men, answered 
Norton at length and with great ability; while a briefer 
reply was modestly made by another young minister named 
Theodore Parker, who was soon to become the storm center 
of a much fiercer controversy which was not merely to con- 


1 See page 415. 


436 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


cern a few of the ministers, but was seriously to disturb the 
peace of the whole denomination for a quarter of a century. 
Of him we have next to speak. 

Theodore Parker was born in 1810, the eleventh and 
youngest child of a farmer in Lexington, where his grand- 
father had been captain of a company at the first battle in 
the American Revolution. As his father was poor, Theodore 
fitted himself for Harvard College while working on the 
farm and teaching school. He could not attend the college 
classes, but while he kept on teaching he took all the regular 
studies and passed the examinations, though for want of 
money to pay the tuition fee he could not graduate. 
While teaching in Boston at this time he listened to Dr. 
Beecher’s preaching for a year, but it served only to con- 
firm him in the Unitarian faith in which he had been brought 
up. After he had finished his course at the Divinity School 
he became minister of a country church at West Roxbury. 
In this quiet little place he was known as a faithful parish 
minister, remarkable chiefly for his immense reading, his 
prodigious memory, his wide and profound scholarship, and 
his mastery of many foreign languages. He had been 
preaching here a year when he heard Emerson’s famous ad- 
dress, and it was three years more before he was unex- 
pectedly lifted out of his obscurity by a sermon which he 
preached in 1841 at the ordination of a minister at South 
Boston. 

Parker took for the theme of his sermon The Transient 
and the Permanent in Christianity, and it speedily brought 
down upon him far worse opprobrium than had fallen upon 
Emerson. Parker was already known as one of the Tran- 
scendentalists, and on this account some of the ministers 
had already refused to exchange with him. He still be- 
lieved in miracles, to be sure, and that Jesus was a perfect 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 437 


man; but in this sermon he insisted that Christianity does 
not need miracles to prove it true. It stands on its own 
merits. The permanent element in it is the teaching of 
Jesus, and the truth of that is self-evident apart from mira- 
cles ; it does not rest on even the personal authority of Jesus, 
indeed it would still remain true though it were proved that 
Jesus never lived at all. On the other hand, the forms and 
doctrines of Christianity are transient, changing from year 
to year. All this, putting in concrete form what Emerson 
had said more abstractly, and saying for people at large 
what Emerson had said only for ministers, was in itself far 
enough from the views then held by most Unitarians; but 
it was made still worse by the fact that in what he said he 
used language which seemed sarcastic and even irreverent. 
Many of the Unitarians present were deeply grieved and 
shocked by what he said. 

Still in spite of all this it is quite possible that the mat- 
ter might soon have blown over and been forgotten, had not 
some orthodox ministers interfered. Three of them being 
present took notes of the most extreme things Parker had 
said, and at once came out in print inquiring of the Unita- 
rian clergy in general whether they meant to endorse such 
views, or to regard the man who had uttered them as a 
Christian; while one of them even demanded that he be 
prosecuted for the crime of blasphemy. Perhaps they 
hoped in this way to win the more conservative Unitarians 
back to orthodoxy by showing them what Unitarianism was 
coming to. Although it was none of their business, they 
practically insisted that the Unitarians should either disown 
Parker or else confess active sympathy with his views. The 
Unitarians at once accepted the challenge, and made haste to 
treat him almost as a heathen and a publican. Some of his 
brother ministers refused henceforth to speak to him on 


438 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the street, or to shake hands with him, or to sit beside him 
at meetings. Some of them called him unbeliever, infidel, 
deist, or atheist, and tried to get him deprived of his pul- 
pit. It was then the custom for ministers to exchange pul- 
pits with one another each month, but the pressure against 
him became so strong that soon but five ministers could be 
found in Boston who would exchange with him; for it was 
felt that exchanging would’mean an approval of his opinions 
which they were unwilling to give. The ministers in the 
country, however, treated him more considerately, con- 
tinuing to exchange with him and to give him their friend- 
ship. There were laymen, too, who thought him not fairly 
treated; and believing in the right of free thought and free 
speech, inasmuch as he was denied a hearing in Boston pul- 
pits they arranged for him in the next two years to give in 
Boston series of lectures or sermons in a public hall. In 
these he restated and expanded the views he had expressed in 
his South Boston sermon. 

It was the Boston ministers who, since they felt most 
responsible for him, treated him in a way that would now 
be thought most illiberal. Some twenty-five of them had 
long been united in a Boston Association of Congregational 
(Unitarian) Ministers, who used to meet together each 
month and to deliver in turn a “Thursday Lecture” in the 
First Church. Parker was one of these. The other mem- 
bers now felt greatly disturbed that Parker should still 
be known as a member of their Association, and they con- 
sidered how they might get rid of him. It was debated 
whether to expel him from membership outright; but they 
shrank from doing this, for it was precisely what they had 
complained of the orthodox for doing to them a generation 
before. Then they tried to get him to resign; but this he 
was unwilling to do, feeling that a vital question of prin- 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 439 


ciple was involved. While all respected him for his char- 
acter, and many of them still esteemed him as a friend, they 
entirely disapproved of his religious views. Furthermore 
he was frequently aggressive in manner, sarcastic in speech, 
and vehement in denunciation of those whose views dif- 
fered from his own, and these characteristics alienated from 
him many of his fellow-ministers who might have stood by 
him. Even Dr. Channing, who continued to the end to be 
his friend, was doubtful whether he should be called a 
Christian. Yet so long as his own congregation were satis- 
fied with him there was no way to turn him out of the 
Unitarian ministry. The result was that the ministers 
simply gave him the cold shoulder, made him feel unwelcome 
at their meetings, and after a little devised a scheme to keep 
him from delivering the Thursday Lecture; so that in a 
year or two they had so far frozen him out that he seldom 
attended the Association, and had little more to do with most 
of its members. Though he was never expelled from the 
Association or from the Unitarian ministry, in the Unitarian 
Year Book his name was never included in the list of min- 
isters and churches except in 1846 and 1848, and in the 
printed list of members of the Boston Association it never 
appeared at all. 

There were a few of the ministers, however, who though 
they did not agree with Parker’s views did believe more than 
the rest in religious freedom, and acted accordingly. Thus 
the Rev. John T, Sargent exchanged with Parker in 1844, 
but for doing so he was so sharply called to account by the 
Benevolent Fraternity of Churches which employed him that 
he felt bound in self-respect to resign his pulpit. James 
Freeman Clarke also exchanged with him the next year, 
whereupon fifteen families emphasized their protest by seced- 
ing from his church and organizing a short-lived one of their 


440 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


own. Parker was now so fully shut out of Boston pulpits 
by their ministers that a group of laymen determined that, 
whether the clergy would or no, he should have a chance to 
be heard in Boston. In the face of strong opposition they 
secured a large hall for him to preach in, and as the con- 
gregation steadily increased it soon organized as the Twenty- 
eighth Congregational Society, and settled Parker as its 
minister. Though most of the newspapers and all the 
magazines threw the weight of their influence against him, he 
won a tremendous hold on the common people, and so long as 
he preached there he was by far the most influential minister 
in Boston, week after week crowding Music Hall with its 
three thousand people, who had come to hear not sensations 
or popular oratory, but plain, earnest, fearless discussion of 
the most serious themes. 

Parker’s work was henceforth that of one disowned and 
opposed by most of his own denomination. As his thought 
grew clearer he became more radical, though never less re- 
ligious; and as time went on, he threw himself ever more 
fully into work for the great social reforms of the day, un- 
wearledly preaching Sundays and lecturing far and wide 
week days for temperance, prison reform, and the elevation 
of woman, and against capital punishment, war and, most of 
all, slavery. Thus he wore himself out. After twelve years 
of this incessant labor his health began to fail. The or- 
thodox exulted, and daily at one o’clock they offered their 
united prayers that the great infidel, as they deemed him, 
might be silenced and his influence come to naught. He 
sought relief in travel in Europe, but it was too late. He 
died in 1860 at Florence, where his grave is in the English 
Cemetery. Then Unitarians began to appreciate and ac- 
knowledge that a great prophet had fallen. His influence 
- among them steadily increased; and in the next generation 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 441 


he had come to be admired and praised by them as second 
only to Channing among all their leaders. 

The discussion which Parker had set going among the 
Unitarians went steadily on after he had ceased to have 
any part in it; nor did it cease after his death. But what 
had begun mainly as a controversy over miracles and 
the importance of believing in them gradually broadened out 
into the general question as to what was essential to Chris- 
tianity, and who are to be regarded as Christians. This 
Radical Controversy, as it came to be known, lasted for 
twenty years, until it was at length swallowed up and largely 
forgotten in the much more serious questions raised by the 
Civil War. What Emerson and Parker had said in public 
and without apology, many others had with hesitation been 
thinking to themselves. As time went on these radicals 
as they were soon called, most of them younger men, be- 
came more numerous, and disbelief in miracles and denial of 
them progressed steadily. The new critical study of the 
Bible gave the movement a fresh impulse, and the preaching 
of many found a new emphasis and took on a new tone. 
For some time attention was so much centered on Parker 
that little heed was paid to what was going on in these other 
minds; but graduates of the Divinity School were anxiously 
scanned to discover whether they were departing from the 
true faith, complaint was expressed in public that men sup- 
posed to be Transcendentalists were narrowly treated by 
those who made belief in miracles practically a test of one’s 
Christianity, and some were discouraged from continuing in 
the ministry. By and by the new views had spread so 
widely that the conservatives began to feel seriously alarmed, 
and the income of the American Unitarian Association seri- 
ously fell off because givers feared their money might be 
used to support radicalism. 


442 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


At length the officers of the Association took official notice 
of what they could no longer ignore. In their annual report 
for 1853 they ascribed the slow growth of the denomination 
in part to radicalism, and in order to defend Unitarians 
against the charge of infidelity and rationalism still being 
made by the orthodox, they set forth a long statement of 
the beliefs they held, and declared the divine origin and au- 
thority of the Christian religion to be the basis of their 
efforts. A resolution to the same effect was unanimously 
adopted. Similar action was taken the same year by the 
Western Unitarian Conference meeting at St. Louis. In 
fact, throughout this whole middle period most of the Unita- 
rlans seemed to be creeping timidly along, steadying them- 
selves by holding on to orthodoxy with one hand, highly 
sensitive to orthodox criticism, and pathetically anxious to 
be acknowledged by the orthodox as really Christian despite 
all differences between them. Thus in this same year at a 
convention at Worcester it was objected to a proposed 
monument to Servetus for the three hundredth anniversary 
of his martyrdom, that “it would offend the orthodox”! 
Nevertheless the orthodox showed little sign of becoming 
more friendly. Unitarianism had not yet found itself, and 
was not yet ready to go its own way alone. 

The denomination had in truth come pretty much to a 
standstill, and seemed to be at once aimless, hopeless, and 
powerless. At the Autumnal Conventions (held at various 
places from 1842 to 1863), though the time was bristling 
with important questions in which the churches should have 
taken an active interest, the ministers discussed little but 
parochial subjects, and no fresh note was sounded, and 
no fresh inspiration given. Addressing the ministers in 


ee 


1854 James Freeman Clarke rightly said that they were “a 


discouraged denomination.” Unitarianism seemed to have 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 443 


gone to seed. ‘The orthodox took note of this, and joyfully 
proclaimed that Unitarianism was dying, which at the time 
seemed to be the case; and they kept on repeating the state- 
ment many years afterwards, even when it had ceased to be 
true. 

The growth of the denomination was very slow. Early in 
the ’forties the Association, instead of spending its funds 
mainly in the publishing of tracts, began to pay more at- 
tention to missionary work, and gave aid to many young or 
feeble churches. Still, in the fifteen years which elapsed be- 
tween the height of the Parker controversy and the outbreak 
of the Civil War, though a few new churches a year were 
added, so many feeble ones died that there was a net gain 
of only about a score. There were several causes for this 
slow growth. In the first place, the Unitarians had still to 
use a good deal of their strength in defending themselves 
against the attacks of the orthodox, and they suffered much 
from the prejudice against them which existed and hindered 
their growth in quarters where they were not well known. 
Moreover, many of the most active spirits in the denomina- 
tion devoted themselves much less to spreading their own 
faith than to furthering great reforms. More than in most 
other denominations the ministers took an active part in 
the anti-slavery movement, and it was warmly debated in 
their meetings; while the temperance and other reforms ab- 
sorbed the energies of some to the cost of their church work. 

The most serious obstacle, however, to united effort for 
the common cause was radicalism. Emerson’s philosophy 
and Parker’s theology made more and more converts, and 
were adopted by some of the ablest and most brilliant of the 
ministers. By 1860 there were said to be twenty-five of 
them who shared Parker’s views. These might have done 
the denomination great service, had they been fraternally 


AA 4 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


treated; but instead, the conservative majority opposed 
them and in large measure alienated them from it, and some 
of them were practically driven from the ministry. Nat- 
urally they could not do much to build up a denomination 
which seemed determined to put free thought and free speech 
under the ban. Nor, on the other hand, would the conserva- 
tives support the Association heartily so long as it was 
equivocal in its attitude toward radicalism. By 1859 the 
number of contributing churches had shrunk to forty. At 
meeting after meeting requests for aid to new or feeble 
churches had to be refused because the Association had 
nothing to give, and many of these churches were thus 
starved to death. Hence missionary enterprise languished 
for want of support; and some of the ablest ministers went 
over to the Episcopal Church, where one of them became 
a bishop.? 

Considering how badly hampered it had been for lack of 
funds, the work of the Association was nevertheless intel- 
ligently and efficiently carried on; and in spite of all the 
discouraging features of this period, still there was more 
life, and more progress was achieved, than was apparent on 
the surface or realized at the time. When resources and 
spirits were at about their lowest ebb at the beginning of 
1854, a special effort resulted in raising many thousands 
of dollars to spread the faith by publishing Unitarian books, 
in place of the tracts that had so long been issued. Much 
good came of this, and the churches’ contributions doubled 
that year. At the same time enthusiasm for foreign mission- 
ary work was kindled. <A generation before a good deal of 
interest had been felt in Unitarian work then being carried 
on in Calcutta, and for several years it received American 
support. Now again, in 1854, in consequence of reports 


1 Frederick Dan Huntington, Bishop of Central New York. 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 4A5 


that great opportunities were opening there, the Association 
appointed the Rev. C. H. A. Dall as their missionary in 
India. His work succeeded and he planted several churches 
and schools there, working with the greatest devotion until 
his death in 1886; but no suitable successor was found to 
continue his labors. The following year (1855) a provi- 
dential chance seemed to open for a mission also among the 
Chippewa Indians in Minnesota, where work was carried on 
for about two years. 

Unprecedented emigration from New England to the 
Western states was now going on, and as the funds of the 
Association slowly increased it became possible to assist in 
organizing more new churches. Such important points as 
Milwaukee, Detroit, and San Francisco were now occupied, 
as were many smaller places; and the first settled minister 
and the first church building in Kansas were Unitarian. 
The Meadville Theological School, established in northwest- 
ern Pennsylvania in 1844, from that time on furnished a 
steady stream of young men for pioneer work in the Missis- 
sippi basin; and the Western Unitarian Conference, organ- 
ized in 1852, did much to further missionary work through- 
out the West. In the South, however, there was little growth 
on account of slavery, and the churches already established 
there had such difficulty in keeping their pulpits filled that 
some time before the beginning of the Civil War several of 
them had passed out of existence. The most rapid growth 
of course was still in Massachusetts. Taking the whole 
country together, though many churches planted in small 
towns had proved to be but short-lived, the number of 
strong new ones founded at important centers much more 
than made good the loss; so that the denomination in 1860 
was distinctly stronger and healthier than in 1845. 

Yet when all has been told, it must still be said that in 


446 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


1859 out of two hundred and fifty churches only a hundred 
contributed regularly to the work of the denomination; 
while a hundred others (and among them some of the largest 
and wealthiest) had never contributed at all. The Secretary 
of the Association in his report the next year said that 
Boston Unitarians saw no reason for diffusing their faith, 
but treated it as a luxury to be kept for themselves, as they 
kept Boston Common. As a rule they had done little for 
Unitarian missions, and it was reported that they did not 
wish to make Unitarians too common. Many had also come 
to feel that the liberalizing work of the denomination was 
now done, and could better be left to others; or else they 
were simply waiting to see what step was to be taken next. 

What that next step should be, and how it could be taken 
unitedly, was made clear through the Civil War. During 
some years previous to that the tense feeling between radi- 
cals and conservatives had been relaxing. The fears of the 
latter had not been realized, and they were becoming more 
kindly in their feeling toward the former. The laymen had 
never felt much concern in the controversy anyway; while 
the ministers, meeting together in their May conferences in 
Boston, and in the Autumnal Conventions elsewhere, grad- 
ually learned to respect one another’s religious views even if 
not agreeing with them. It was realized that after all they 
were all of the same family, had many great interests in com- 
mon, and would be ready to rally to the same cause when 
one should present itself great enough to outweigh their 
differences. 

That cause was found, for the time, not in religion, nor 
even in social reform, but in patriotism. The Unitarian 
ministers and churches threw themselves with great zeal 
into the tasks presented by the war. Some sixty of the 
ministers served in the army as chaplains or otherwise. 


ite ys 


INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT 4A'Y 


Dr. Henry W. Bellows of New York organized and led the 
work of the Sanitary Commission, and Dr. William G. Eliot 
of St. Louis formed and directed a Western Sanitary Com- 
mission, both of which throughout the war did a work 
similar to that of the Red Cross at a later period, and were 
largely supported by Unitarians; whereas the orthodox 
churches, criticizing these movements for not being suffi- 
ciently religious in character for churches to undertake, gave 
their preference to the Christian Commission, corresponding 
to the religious war work in later times carried on by 
the Young Men’s Christian Association. The Unitarian 
Association also prepared especially for army use books and 
tracts which were circulated among the soldiers in very large 
numbers, and met with an unparalleled success. The result 
was that the interest of the churches in the work the Associa- 
tion was doing was greatly increased, churches began giving 
to it that had never given before, and contributions steadily 
rose all through the war. 

Although the war-time missionary work nearly ceased, the 
reaction of war work upon the denomination was very 
marked. ‘The Autumnal Conventions in 1862 and 1863 were 
the largest, most enthusiastic, and most united that had been 
known. ‘The churches began to realize that there were great 
things to be done for the welfare of the world, and that they 
were called upon to bear their full part in doing them. 
The war was teaching the great value of organization for 
effective work, and the need of an efficient organization of 
the churches (the Association had never been more than an 
organization of contributing individuals) was discussed al- 
ready in the second year of the war. The Autumnal Con- 
vention was not called together in 1864, but instead a 
special meeting of the Association was held at the end of 
that year. A united and enthusiastic spirit was shown. It 


448 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


was reported that the Association was receiving far more 
calls than its funds could meet, and the calls were rapidly 
increasing. Unprecedented missionary opportunities were 
opening, for the war had.had a remarkable liberalizing effect 
on the country, not least in matters of religion. It was 
at first proposed to undertake to raise regularly henceforth 
at least $25,000 a year for the work. of the Association, in- 
stead of the bare third of that amount irregularly given 
during the past twenty years; but the amount was soon 
amended to $100,000. This further led to a proposition to 
call a general convention of all Unitarian churches in the 
country to take measures for the good of the denomination. 
The idea was received with enthusiasm, and both motions 
were unanimously carried. American Unitarianism in get- 
ting a new and wide vision of its mission had at last found 
itself. The organization of a National Conference soon 
followed, as the next chapter will relate. 


2 


CHAPTER XXXVII 


AMERICAN UNITARIANISM ORGANIZED AND 
EXPANDING, 1865-1925 


The effects of the meeting referred to at the close of the 
preceding chapter began at once to appear. Some, indeed, 
having little faith that the plan so enthusiastically proposed 
could actually be carried out, held back from doing anything 
to realize it; while some even derided it as chimerical. But 
in the main the denomination fell in splendidly behind its 
leaders. The feeling was widespread that the whole country 
was now as ready to accept liberal Christianity as eastern 
Massachusetts had been fifty years before, and that Uni- 
tarians needed only to seize the opportunity which the time 
offered them in order to establish in America a genuine Broad 
Church. Whereas in 1864 the Association had received for 
its general work only $6,000, and that from only fifty of the 
churches, and in the previous year only half as much as even 
this, the new appeal for $100,000 for largely increasing the 
work of the denomination met with a response beyond all 
expectation. The old givers largely multiplied their gifts, 
while many churches now contributed for the first time. 
Well before the annual meeting of the Association in May 
the whole sum had been considerably over-subscribed. 

When therefore the national Convention of the churches 
met early in April in New York, the apathy and discourage- 
ment which had for twenty years hung over the denomina- 


tion like a pall had already given way to buoyant enthusi- 
449 


450 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


asm and eager hope. The very time was propitious. The 
Civil War was evidently drawing to a close; indeed, it was 
but three days after the adjournment of the Convention that 
Lee’s army surrendered at Appomattox, thus virtually end- 
ing the war. It was the first time that an attempt had been 
made to organize all the churches of the denomination for a 
common purpose, for, as has been said, the Association had 
been only an organization of a comparatively small number 
of individuals; and although churches often gave to it, they 
had no direct voice in planning its work.’ Moreover, while 
the Association had been largely officered and managed by 
ministers, the Convention invited and received codperation 
from the ablest laymen. 

A few of the extreme churches on either wing declined to 
take part in the Convention, but the attendance surpassed 
the fondest hopes. Over two hundred churches were repre- 
sented by nearly four hundred delegates. Enthusiasm was 
deep and strong; for they realized that they had come to- 
gether, as the call said, “for the more thorough organization 
of the Liberal Church of America; for the more generous 
support of” its various lines of work. John A. Andrew, the 
famous “War Governor” of Massachusetts, was chosen pres- 
ident; but Dr. Bellows of New York was the guiding spirit: 
of the meeting. The Convention promptly settled down to 
work and heard reports of work done or to be done; and on 
the second day it permanently organized as the National 
Conference of Unitarian Churches.” In the way of prac- 
tical work it was resolved that $100,000 annually should 

1In 1884 the Association amended its constitution so as to allow 
delegate representation of churches; and in 1924 steps were taken 


looking to the eventual extinction of individual memberships and merg- 


ing with the General Conference. 
2Name changed in 1911 to General Conference of Unitarian and 


Other Christian Churches. 


EXPANSION OF UNITARIANISM 451 


be raised by the churches for the work of the denomination ; 
that $100,000 be at once raised for the endowment of Anti- 
och College; that the theological schools at Cambridge and 
Meadville be more amply endowed; and that missionary work 
in the West be generously supported. 

Active measures were at once taken for carrying these 
resolutions into effect. Antioch College in Ohio had been 
founded in 1852 on a non-sectarian basis. Its first presi- 
dent had been Horace Mann, a distinguished Massachusetts 
Unitarian, and Unitarians had from the beginning contrib- 
uted to it generously, since it gave good promise of becom- 
ing as liberal an influence in the West as Harvard had been 
in New England. It was now in serious financial straits, 
and in danger of utter failure; but in less than two months 
after the Conference the entire sum asked for had been sub- 
scribed, and the college was saved. It was an important 
step toward religious freedom in American education, for 
there were as yet but three or four colleges in the country 
quite free from denominational control; and only a few years 
previously a distinguished chemist had failed of election to 
a chair at Columbia College in New York for the sole reason 
that he was a Unitarian. One of the most fruitful of the 
new plans was also to establish churches in college towns in 
order to reach students who might go forth and spread 
liberal religion widely. The first of these was at the Uni- 
versity of Michigan at Ann Arbor in 1865, followed the next 
year by one at the newly founded Cornell University at 
Ithaca, New York, and later by others to the number of 
some twenty in all. 

Steps were at once taken to revive the churches in the 
South that had been closed during the war. A missionary 
was also sent to California, and within the next four or five 
years five new churches were planted in important towns on 


452 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


the Pacific Coast. Over a hundred ministers were sent into 
new territory for longer or shorter periods of missionary 
preaching, and in less than four years the number of churches 
had increased thirty per cent. Within a year the churches 
of the Western Conference had doubled in numbers and 
strength, support of the Sunday-school Society had largely 
increased, and the Association had received ‘important leg- 
acies. Whereas the denomination had for many years be- 
fore the close of the war made little progress, within eighteen 
months from the calling of the New York convention over 
forty churches and nearly forty ministers had been added to 
the roll. Unitarianism in America had almost at a bound 
come to realize itself as a national movement instead of 
merely “a Boston notion,” and to be united for aggressive 
work. 

All these reports of progress brought great cheer to the 
second meeting of the National Conference, held in 1866 
at Syracuse, where further plans for organizing the denom- 
ination were matured. Of these the most important was 
to divide the whole country into districts, each with its local 
conference, which should draw neighboring churches together 
for closer fellowship and united work. Four such already 
existed, and fourteen more were now organized, which did 
much to unite the churches in sympathy, and especially in 
missionary work and the raising of money. A gesture was 
also made toward cultivating acquaintance and good feeling 
with liberal spirits in other denominations, and to this end 
the Conference voted to change its name so as to read, “Uni- 
tarian and other Christian Churches.” But although for 
a time a little progress seemed to be made in this direction, 
nothing permanent was achieved. Carrying out the plans 
made at the first meeting, the Conference now raised on the 
spot an endowment for a new chair at the Meadville school; 


EXPANSION OF UNITARIANISM 453 


and a new newspaper, “The Liberal Christian,’ was soon 
established in New York. 

The next two years continued to be a time of rapid devel- 
opment. Unitarian theater meetings were held in most of 
the large cities of the country from Boston to San Francisco, 
and were attended by large crowds who eagerly listened to 
Unitarian views of religion. Week after week for four years 
the largest theater in Boston was crowded for such services 5 
and as a result of these meetings, Young Men’s Christian 
Unions were organized in a number of cities. A new School 
for the Ministry was opened in Boston in 1867, to prepare 
men of incomplete education for rough and ready missionary 
work. The local conferences had a stimulating effect, and 
the individual churches were roused to great local activity. 
Large sums were raised for philanthropies, and generous aid 
was given toward elevating the condition of those lately 
freed from slavery in the South. 

This high tide of enthusiasm and united work, however, 
did not long remain at its first level. Reaction from the 
exultation over the ending of the war set in,.and after a year 
the contributions for the general work of the Association fell 
back to less than $50,000. Worse than this, dissensions 
were again developing within the denomination. The rad- 
ical controversy, which seemed to have died out during the 
war, reappeared in a new shape. It was now not so much a 
question of miracles, for perhaps half the denomination now 
sympathized with Parker on that point, and a hundred of 
the ministers looked up to him as one of the best of Chris- 
tians ; but when the National Conference came to organize it 
became necessary to define who might belong to it, for it was 
felt that it should be unmistakably a Christian conference. 
At first a persistent attempt was made by conservatives to 
set up a creed as a condition of membership in the Confer- 


454 ~OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


ence. This attempt failed, but the constitution adopted 
did refer to Jesus Christ as Lord and as son of God;* and 
these expressions contained the seeds of thirty years’ trouble, 
for they were taken toe imply beliefs which the radicals felt 
they could not with good conscience accept. Dissatisfac- 
tion over the matter steadily increased during the year, 
and it was well organized when the Conference met at Syra- 
cuse the next year, where*the radicals proposed to amend 
the constitution so as to base its action rather on unity of 
spirit than on uniformity of belief,? and to avoid the objec- 
tionable expressions. The subject was earnestly debated 
through a whole session, but the radicals were overwhelm- 
ingly defeated. 

It was said on the conservative side that the radicals ought 
to leave the denomination, and this some of them now pro- 
ceeded to do. Before the next spring they had taken steps 
to form the Free Religious Association on a basis that 
should allow them the freedom which they felt that the Na- 
tional Conference had refused to grant. This new Associ- 
ation was organized in 1867 with much enthusiasm. About 
half its original members had been Unitarian ministers, and 
Emerson’s name was first on the list; yet not all were rad- 
icals, nor were all Unitarians, for half-a-dozen religious 
elements were represented in it. It offered hospitality to 
every form of religious thought, and cultivated sympathy 
with other religions than Christianity; but though it held 
annual conventions and issued various publications, it did 
not attempt to form new organizations, still less a new de- 


i, .all disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ ... the service of 
God and the building-up of the kingdom of his Son.” 
2“. ,. disregarding all sectarian or theological differences, and offer- 


ing a cordial fellowship to all who will join with them in Christian 
work.” 


EXPANSION OF UNITARIANISM 455 


nomination. Indeed, though a very few of its members with- 
drew from the denomination, many of them still remained in 
the National Conference to agitate for broader freedom. 
For a quarter of a century it exercised an important in- 
fluence in broadening religious sympathies, and it still con- 
tinues its existence; but its mission was largely accomplished 
in its first twenty-five years. 

While the extreme conservatives were satisfied with the re- 
sult of the vote at Syracuse, many others felt that the Con- 
ference had taken too narrow ground, thus unjustly exclud- 
ing from it some deeply religious and conscientious men. 
Nearly a hundred of the ministers either had joined the 
Free Religious Association or were in sympathy with it. 
The result was that at the next meeting of the Conference 
in New York in 1868, with a larger attendance than ever 
before, an amendment * was almost unanimously adopted 
which was calculated to ease the consciences of the radical 
members of the Conference. It was now the turn of the con- 
servatives to feel aggrieved, for they interpreted this action 
as a virtual surrender of the Conference’s allegiance to 
Christianity, by yielding to the radicals nearly all that they 
had asked for. As radicalism was steadily spreading, and 
the majority of the recent graduates of the Divinity School 
and even a few from Meadville were given to it, the conserva- 
tives now began to agitate more than ever for some means of 
excluding from the denomination those who could not accept 
their definition of Christianity. 

The American Unitarian Association took broad ground, 
wishing to include both wings of the denomination, and recog- 

i“, . , all the declarations of this Conference, including the Preamble 


and Constitution, are expressions only of its majority, committing in 
no degree those who object to them.” 


456 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


nizing both conservatives and radicals without prejudice. 
But the conservatives insisted that unless it would withhold 
recognition and aid from radicals, it would not deserve the 
support of the denomination, and they urged churches to 
cease contributing until the question was settled. As no 
satisfaction was given them, they early in 1870 proposed the 
forming of an Evangelical Unitarian Association, with a 
creed for its basis. Had ‘this been formed, the denomina- 
tion would have been split in two; but by the great major- 
ity it was strongly and successfully opposed. 

The leader in this “new movement,” as it was called, was 
the Rev. George H. Hepworth, a popular preacher of Bos- 
ton, whose enthusiasm had launched the theater services and 
the new School for the Ministry. Removing to New York 
he had many requests from his hearers for some authorized 
statement of what Unitarians believed. As he and his 
friends were anxious both to exclude radicals from the de- 
nomination and to stand well in the eyes of- the orthodox, 
they began an insistent agitation to get some such statement 
adopted, and they urged the Association at its meeting in 
1870 to take steps in this direction. But Unitarians have 
ever been suspicious of anything that might be taken as a 
binding creed, and the motion was heavily defeated. At 
the National Conference in the autumn the attempt was re- 
newed ; and as the subject had for months been earnestly dis- 
cussed in pulpit and in print, the very large number of del- 
egates gathered in suppressed excitement. Mr. Hepworth 
moved to substitute for the amendment adopted at the last 
Conference a new one re-affirming allegiance to Jesus Christ.? 
After being earnestly debated for a day and a half, it was 
finally carried by a vote of eight to one, while the minority 


1“Re-afirming our allegiance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, ... we 
invite to our fellowship all who wish to be followers of Christ.” 


EXPANSION OF UNITARIANISM 457 


were hissed. ‘Thus the door was again shut against the 
radicals.* 

Cleavage between the two wings of the denomination now 
became sharper than ever, and the radical minority, though 
steadily increasing in number, naturally felt little enthusi- 
asm about taking part in denominational enterprises. For 
twelve long years nothing was done to make them feel them- 
selves welcome members of their own denomination. On the 
contrary, in what was known as the Year-Book Controversy, 
the situation was emphasized anew. The President of the 
Free Religious Association had in 1873 asked that his name 
be removed from the list of ministers in the Unitarian Year- 
Book, on the ground that he was no longer a Unitarian 
Christian. Upon this, the editor ventured to inquire of 
several other ministers supposed to believe as he did whether 
they wished their names to be retained. One of these was 
the Rev. William J. Potter of New Bedford, Secretary of 
the Free Religious Association. He replied that he did not 
call himself a Christian in the doctrinal sense of the word, 
but he placed upon the editor the responsibility of deciding 
whether to omit the name. The editor therefore omitted his 
name along with the others. As the case became public it 
attracted wide attention and severe criticism; for it was felt 
by many that a man of admitted Christian character had 
been virtually excluded from the denomination simply be- 
cause he would not describe himself by a certain name. The 
conservatives applauded the action, while the liberals re- 
gretted it; but after full discussion in print and in debates 
it was approved at meetings of both the Association and the 


1Though he had won his point, Hepworth became increasingly dis- 
satisfied with the position of the denomination, and grew steadily 
more orthodox. Two years later he left his church and entered the 
orthodox ministry. Late in life he made overtures for returning to 
the Unitarian pulpit, but he was discouraged from doing so, 


458 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


National Conference. Protests and criticisms continued to 
be made over what was felt by many to have been an act of 
narrow injustice, but it was not until 1883 that the omitted 
names were restored to the list of ministers, at first half- 
heartedly, and only in a supplementary list.' 

Time slowly did its work. Those who had been the 
strongest bulwarks of conservatism passed away, or ceased 
to be active, or softened in their feeling; while the younger 
men coming forward had most of them grown up in a 
liberal atmosphere. At length, at the National Conference 
in 1882, the hberal spirit prevailed, and with but one dis- 
senting voice an amendment” was adopted opening the 
door again to those who had felt themselves excluded by the 
action taken in 1870. Thus the cause for which Parker’s 
name had long before been omitted from the Year Book had, 
after forty years, won in the struggle for spiritual freedom. 
His name had now for some years been spoken with much 
respect and honor by leaders in the denomination as one of 
its great prophets; and the Association in 1885. finally 
set the seal of approval upon him by publishing a volume 
of his writings. 

Meanwhile the high hopes of a very rapid spread of the 
denomination, and the rosy dreams of $100,000 a year for 
general missionary purposes, which had been realized for a 
year or two after the organization of the National Confer- 
ence, began to be disappointed. The lack of sympathy be- 
tween conservatives and radicals was to no small degree re- 
sponsible for this, for the national Association in trying to 
conciliate both wings of the denomination succeded in win- 


1 First and last some six names were concerned. 

2“The Preamble and Articles of our Constitution... are no au- 
thoritative test of Unitarianism, and are not intended to exclude 
from our fellowship any who, while differing from us in belief, are 
in general sympathy with our purposes and practical aims.” 


EXPANSION OF UNITARIANISM 459 


ning the generous confidence of neither; so that many 
churches in both wings would not contribute to the support 
of its work liberally and generously, if at all. After the 
conservative victory at the National Conference in 1870, it 
is true, contributions for missionary work more than doubled 
for a single year; but on the whole there was a steady decline 
from the $100,000 of 1865 to less than a quarter of that 
sum in 1878. Church extension was steadily carried on, 
but it was at the cost of steady encroachment upon the cap- 
ital of the general funds of the Association. This whole pe- 
riod was marked by lack of spirit, of enthusiasm, and of 
confidence. 

Other causes, however, contributed to this end. The 
period of inflation and extravagance following the Civil War 
was followed by one of financial depression which affected all 
enterprises. The great conflagration in Chicago in 1871 
and in Boston the following year at once diminished the 
resources of many of the churches and increased the de- 
mands made upon them. ‘The severe financial panic of 1873 
laid its heavy hand for several years upon the whole coun- 
try. Altogether it is surprising that the work of the denom- 
ination did not suffer more seriously than it did. 

In spite of all these unfavorable conditions, the main body 
of the churches remained stedfast to their cause. The 
National Conferences were largely attended, and continued 
to plan for carrying on the work of the denomination. If 
the general contributions to the Association fell off, yet large 
sums were given for special denominational causes. Gen- 
erous endowments were raised for additional professor- 
ships at the Harvard Divinity School and the Meadville 
Theological School. Large subscriptions were raised for 
relief of the churches suffering in the Chicago fire, to erect 
a national church at Washington, and a Channing Memorial 


460 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


church at Newport on the centennial of Channing’s birth, 
and to raise crushing debts upon important churches in 
New York, New Orleans, and elsewhere. ‘The denomination 
also supported important educational work for both the 
whites and the negroes in the South; prosecuted welfare work 
among the Indians in the West, and among seamen; con- 
tinued its successful mission in India, for several years sup- 
ported Unitarian preaching in Paris, and sent aid to the 
needy Unitarian Church in Hungary. 

At home aid was given to an increasing number of young 
or feeble churches, and many new churches were founded and 
many missionary preachers were employed, especially in the 
West; and a promising beginning was made of work among’ 
the Scandinavians of the Northwest. New churches were 
established in Washington Territory, Southern California, 
and the Southern States. The work in college towns was 
much extended. In 1876 a Ministers’ Institute was formed 
for stimulating scholarly interests among the ministers; 
and in 1880 a Women’s Auxiliary Conference was organ- 
ized, which ten years later became the National Alliance of 
Unitarian and other Liberal Christian Women,! and has 
been of the greatest service in uniting the women of the de- 
nomination for effective work. Thus, in spite of all inter- 
ferences, the progress of organizing and extending the 
Unitarian movement in America, which began with the Na- 
tional Conference in 1865, made headway. In half a gener- 
ation not only had many of the older churches gained in 
strength, but over a hundred additions had been made to the 
lists of churches and ministers. Nevertheless those un- 
friendly to Unitarianism still continued to repeat that the 
cause was dying. 

While the work of the American Unitarian Association 


1 The word National was dropped in 1913. 


EXPANSION OF UNITARIANISM 461 


had from the beginning been designed to cover the whole 
country, the Western Unitarian Conference, comprising a 
vast territory, became semi-national in its scope, and ran a 
more or less independent course, and for much of the time 
carried on an independent work west of the Alleghanies. Its 
parallel history therefore deserves particular attention. 
The Western Conference was organized at Cincinnati in 1852 
when as yet there were not a dozen well-rooted churches in 
the whole West, separated by great distances and connected 
by scanty means of communication. In scores of promising 
young towns where orthodox religion had largely lost its 
hold upon the people and they were in danger of relapsing 
into irreligion, Unitarian preaching was eagerly welcomed. 
But ministers were hard to get, and new churches multiplied 
but slowly, while many prematurely formed soon died for 
want of competent leadership. The anti-slavery conflict 
also interfered with the growth of the movement in the West, 
and in the Civil War more than half of the ministers went to 
the front as chaplains or as soldiers; yet at the end of the 
war the Conference contained some thirty-five churches. In 
the revival following the organization of the National Con- 
ference, the Association kept a missionary Secretary in the 
West for some years, and many new churches were planted ; 
while from 1875 on the Conference had its own Secretary in 
the field, and extension went on faster than ever. In due 
time a Women’s Conference, a Sunday-school Society, and 
various state conferences were established; a newspaper 
(Unity), many tracts, and series of Sunday-school lessons, 
were published; and Unity Clubs and Post-office Missions 
were formed in many of the churches. The conference had 
its own missionary funds and missionaries, and with the as- 
sistance of the Association denominational work was carried 


on with great zeal. 


462 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


Meantime doctrinal changes were going on even more 
rapidly than in the East. The churches established in the 
early days of the Conference were generally conservative, 
and in the Parker controversy they took ground against 
Parker’s views, though refusing to adopt an authoritative 
statement of belief. But radical views early appeared, and 
there was little in either tradition or environment to keep 
them in check. During the controversy in the National 
Conference over radicalism, sympathy in most of the 
churches went with the radicals, and any tendency toward a 
creed was strongly resisted. In 1875 resolutions were unan- 
imously passed sympathizing with the Free Religious As- 
sociation as well as with the American Unitarian Association, 
and a unanimous protest was also made against the action 
taken by the Association in the Year Book cases. As a 
further comment upon the conservative position of the 
National Conference, it was also unanimously resolved that 
“the Conference conditions its fellowship on no dogmatic 
tests, but welcomes all thereto who desire to work with it. 
in advancing the Kingdom of God.” For ten years a steady 
movement went on to purge the constitutions of state con- 
ferences and local churches of everything that might seem 
to limit perfect freedom of belief. 

There were those, however, who saw that unlimited free- 
dom brought with it grave dangers to the cause, and for 
this reason some ministers had already withdrawn from the 
Conference. It had been loosely organized, and in many 
places, in churches composed largely of come-outers, 
irreparable damage had been done by irresponsible free- 
lances calling themselves Unitarians. As the growth of the 
churches had not kept pace with that of the population, 
the Secretary of the Conference became convinced that the 
trouble was that it had not stood definitely enough for cer- 


EXPANSION OF UNITARIANISM 463 


tain fundamental beliefs, and that further mischief might be 
prevented, and the religious reputation of the Conference be 
redeemed, if it were to set forth a statement of the central 
religious beliefs it stood for. He strongly urged this action 
at the Conference at St. Louis in 1885, though no action 
was taken; but in the course of the following year the matter 
developed into what became known as “the issue in the 
West,” which reached its crisis at the meeting at Cincinnati 
in 1886. 

The Conference was sharply divided on the question. On 
the one hand were those who felt the time had come for the 
Conference clearly to indicate in a few simple words that it 
stood for Christian belief in God; and that without this 
there was danger that it mrght be vitally injured, if not 
overwhelmed, by unbelievers of every sort claiming to be 
Unitarians.*. On the other hand were those who felt that 
even the simplest statement or implication of theological 
beliefs would in effect be taken as a creed, and used to make 
certain beliefs obligatory upon the members of the Con- 
ference, and that this would be the end of the religious free- 
dom of Unitarianism. It was not a division of believers 
against unbelievers, for both sides were equally devout, and 
held practically the same religious beliefs. It was the ques- 
tion whether the Conference should insist first upon the be- 
hefs it stood for, or upon the work it aimed to do; and 
whether it was willing to shut out any one from joining in 
that work simply because he did not profess certain beliefs. 

The debate on the question was long, earnest, and painful; 
but at the end it was resolved by a decisive majority that 
“the Western Unitarian Conference conditions its fellowship 
on no dogmatic tests, but welcomes all who wish to join it 


1As a matter of fact there were only one or two such cases, and 
those were short-lived. The danger was theoretical rather than actual. 


4.64 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


to help establish Truth, Righteousness, and Love in the 
world.” The decision brought great grief to the conserv- 
atives, for the words Christianity, religion, and even God, 
had been deliberately left out of the constitution, and 
nothing seemed to be left but truth, righteousness, and love. 
If even an agnostic or an atheist claimed recognition as a 
Unitarian, the Conference would not close the door against 
him. A few weeks afterwards the conservatives resigned 
from the Conference and organized a Western Unitarian 
Association, to codperate with the national Association in 
its missionary work. It was never much more than an 
organization on paper, and it did no missionary work of 
its own; but its leaders maintained their own periodical 
(The Unitarian), and did what they could to discourage the 
churches from codperating with the Western Conference. 
The controversy rapidly spread east and west, and dragged 
on for half a dozen years, and it was also taken up vig- 
orously even in the English Unitarian papers. Although 
the Conference at its next meeting (1887) published a noble 
statement of the beliefs commonly held by its members, it 
was repeatedly charged that the Western Conference had 
adopted an atheistic and non-Christian basis. The charge 
was so far believed that the national Association, reflecting 
the sentiment of the eastern churches, for several years 
refused to codperate with the Western Conference in mis- 
sionary work, and maintained its own western agent. 

The result of the controversy, in which for a long time 
neither side would yield any ground, was that there were for 
some years practically two denominations of Unitarians in 
the West, working separately, and critical of each other. 
The forces of the denomination were thus badly divided, 
and its missionary work severely crippled. In fact, the 
work in the West never quite returned to its former vigor. 


EXPANSION OF UNITARIANISM 465 


In time, however, the two factions came to understand each 
other better, and in 1892 effective steps were taken to heal 
the breach. Finally at the meeting of the National Con- 
ference in 1894 the constitution was again revised’? in a 
way so broad as to satisfy both conservatives and radicals, 
and it was adopted unanimously by acclamation. With this 
action the doctrinal differences that had disturbed the peace 
and hindered the growth of the denomination for over half 
a century subsided, and have not again arisen; for it is 
realized that perfect spiritual freedom has been achieved. 

From that time on the life of the denomination has been 
healthy, and its progress in strength, though not rapid, 
has been steady. Many new churches have been planted 
in the far West and in the South, as well as on the eastern 
seaboard ; an important missionary enterprise in Japan was 
undertaken in 1889, and more efficient organization of forces 
has been steadily won. The forming of the Young People’s 
Religious Union in 1896 was the beginning of a movement 
of great and increasing importance; and in 1919 the Lay- 
men’s League took its place beside the Woman’s Alliance 
and brought undreamed-of vigor into the life of the churches. 
The organization of the International Congress of Free 
Christians and Other Religious Liberals in 1900, and of the 
National Federation of Religious Liberals in 1908, have 
brought the denomination into active sympathy with kindred 
movements in other lands and other churches. 

At the end of the first hundred years of the American 
Unitarian Association the Unitarian churches of the country 
are more than twice as numerous and far more than twice as 


1“These churches accept the religion of Jesus, hoiding, in accordance 
with his teaching, that practical religion is summed up in love to God 
and love to man... and we cordially invite to our working fellowship 
any who, while differing from us in belief, are in general sympathy 
with our spirit and our practical aims.” 


466 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


strong and well organized as they were when the National 
Conference was organized. They are far more united in 
spirit, more positive and wholesome in their thought, and 
more hopeful of their future than they then were. Their 
contributions for common work are now more in a single year 
than they formerly were for many years together, and their 
annual circulation of books and tracts has been multiplied 
by twenty. Their sharé in the work of education, phil- 
anthropy, reforms, and public leadership has always been 
far out of proportion to their numerical strength. Their 
thought has been so largely assimilated by other denomina- 
tions that many churches calling themselves orthodox, and 
holding themselves quite aloof from Unitarians, are now 
much farther away from Calvinism than Channing was. 
Yet on the other hand they see great multitudes whose 
religion seems to belong rather to the eighteenth century 
than to the twentieth. Much as has been accomplished to 
spread the enlightenment and the inspiration of liberal 
Christianity, there seems as yet no end to the work for them 
still to do; and at the end of their first century’s history 
American Unitarians face the future with clearer vision of 
their opportunity, with stronger faith in their cause, and 
with firmer confidence in its destiny, than at any time in 
the past. 


CHAPTER XXXVIII 


THE MEANING AND LESSON OF UNITARIAN 
HISTORY 


We have come to the end of our history. It has been a 
Icng story—nearly four centuries, almost as long as that 
of Protestantism itself. We have followed the course of 
a movement which has profoundly influenced the religious 
life of Poland and Transylvania, England and America, has 
furnished important episodes in that of Italy and Switzer- 
land, Germany and Holland, and has left a lasting impres- 
sion on the thought and tendencies of the Protestant world. 
The orthodox Protestantism of the twentieth century, in 
both its teachings and its spirit, is a far different thing 
from what it would have been if Servetus, Socinus and 
David, Lindsey, Priestley and Martineau, Channing and 
Parker had never lived, and if Calvin and Luther had been 
suffered to rule the thought and life of their followers un- 
challenged and uncriticized. In so far as the religious hfe 
of our time is comparatively free, reasonable, and tolerant, 
and lays greater stress upon personal character and lives 
of service than upon the doctrines of theology, the pioneers 
and prophets of the movement whose course we have been 
tracing deserve much more credit than has generally been 
given them. 

Now that we have heard the story, what is the real mean- 
ing of it all? It has not been merely a long attempt to 


substitute one set of doctrines for another. That has often 
467 


468 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


been involved in it, it is true; but beneath all this has been 
something far deeper and more important. For if men 
are to change their beliefs from one age to another, as they 
get new light or discover new truth, their minds must be 
left free in their search, and not be barred in this direction 
or that; nor can their new beliefs be shared with others 
unless there is also freedom of speech and of press. Hence 
the first thing that has characterized this history has been 
its steady tendency toward perfect spiritual freedom. 
When creeds or dogmas were opposed, it was not more be- 
cause they were disbelieved than because they stood in the 
way of freedom of thought in religion with a “thus far 
but no further,” and because free spirits were unwilling that 
other men should forbid them to judge for themselves as 
to the teachings of the Bible or of their own consciences. 
Unitarianism, then, has meant first of all religious freedom 
and escape from bondage to creeds; and throughout their 
whole history Unitarians have stedfastly refused to set up 
any creed, even the shortest, as a test which must be 
passed by those who would join them. 

Yet freedom may go wild unless it is guided by some 
wholesome principle. This principle Unitarians have found 
in the use of reason in religion; and this has been their 
second main point of emphasis. They have believed that 
God would most safely and surely lead them into more 
truth when they most used the faculties he has given them 
for discerning truth from error. They have therefore seen 
little cause to follow traditions from the past simply be- 
cause they were old, unless they could show good reason 
for being. At first they were content to ask simply whether 
doctrines could be supported by Scripture; but at length 
they came to realize that even what the Bible teaches is 
merely what men of olden time thought and felt and did, 


THE MEANING OF UNITARIAN HISTORY 469 


and that reason and conscience must decide for us whether 
their ways must be ours, or whether we must come to fresh 
convictions, experiences, and principles for our own new 
time. 

Once again, Unitarians were not long in discovering that 
if they were to claim for themselves the right of full free- 
dom of belief and of teaching in religion, they must of 
course grant similar freedom to others. It was at first 
hard for them to accept the consequences of this principle, 
and for a time they yielded to the temptation to repress 
or to cast out from their number those who seemed to them 
to go too far from familiar ways; but they eventually saw 
that there can be no perfect freedom in religion unless 
there is perfect mutual toleration. And this was well; for 
just as truth can be trusted in the long run and in a fair 
field to stand on its own merits without fear or favor, so 
it may be trusted that error will in the end be discovered, 
and will certainly perish of itself. 

It is the emphasis on these things, far more than on any 
mere Unitarian doctrines, that during nearly four centuries 
have more and more given Unitarianism its distinctive char- 
acter; and perhaps the most that need be said about those 
doctrines is that they are the ones that men will be most 
likely to come to when their minds are left unbiased and 
free in relation to religion, when they make unhindered 
use of reason in thinking about religion, and when entire 
religious toleration is given them. Yet after these points 
are gained, something still remains. What is religion for, 
practically, any way, and what is the final test of it? The 
Unitarian answer has consistently been that the true test 
of a good religion is not orthodoxy of belief, but that it 
is to be found in the kind of characters it produces; and 
that we do not realize its whole purpose until we get beyond 


4:70 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


thought of ourselves, and give ourselves to the service of 
others, as all members of one great family of God. 

When the Unitarian movement began, the marks of true 
religion were commonly thought to be belief in the creeds, 
membership in the church, and participation in its rites and 
sacraments. To the Unitarian of to-day the marks of true 
religion are spiritual freedom, enlightened reason, broad 
and tolerant sympathy, upright character and unselfish 
service. | These things, which go to the very heart of life, 
best express the meaning and lesson of Unitarian history. 
The difference between these two views of religion marks a 
great revolution, and it has been a costly one. To make 
it possible Servetus, Gentile, David, and a score or more 
of others suffered death; Gribaldo, Ochino, Socinus, and 
the Polish Brethren endured persecution or went into ex- 
ile. For this Bidle and Emlyn were imprisoned; Lindsey 
and Priestley had obloquy heaped upon them; and num- 
berless others in great ways or in small have sacrificed or 
suffered or been outcast for this faith. Without these 
and what they endured in their cause, we should now be 
enjoying but little of the hberty that is ours to-day. How 
can we better show appreciation of the free faith that in- 
spires and comforts our lives to-day than by keeping it 
pure and handing it on stronger than ever to those that 
shall come after us? 


APPENDIX 


THE THREE GREAT CREEDS OF EARLY 
CHRISTIANITY 


A. THE APOSTLES’ CREED 


This Creed is so called from the legend that the twelve 
apostles met soon after the death of Jesus and composed it, 
each of them contributing one sentence. In reality, it orig- 
inated at Rome in the third quarter of the second century. 
It was never adopted by the Eastern Church, but has been 
widely accepted by both Roman Catholics and Protestants 
as the simplest statement of the essentials of Christian faith, 
In the enlarged form now current it runs as follows: 


I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven 
and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord, 
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin 
Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, 
and was buried. He descended into hell, the third day he 
rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at 
the right hand of God the Father almighty, whence he is 
to come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the 
Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of 
saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the 
body, the hfe eternal. 


B. THE NICENE CREED 


This Creed (see pages 22, 24, 25) was adopted at the 
Council of Nicea (3825), and brought forward in a revised 


form at the Council of Constantinople (381), but it was not 
471 


AT2 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


finally sanctioned in the form now current until the Council 
of Chalcedon (451). It is the one creed recognized by both 
the Eastern and the Western Church, from which it has been 
inherited by orthodox Protestantism. Like the Apostles’ 
Creed, it forms a part of the liturgy of the Church of Eng- 
land and the Protestant Episcopal Church. In the version 
given below, italics denote parts added to the original Creed 
of 325, while parts later omitted from that are bracketed. 


We believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of 
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son 
of God, begotten of the Father (the only-begotten, that 
is, of the substance of the Father) before all worlds (God 
of God and) light of light, very God of very God, begot- 
ten, not made, of one substance with the Father; by whom 
all things were made (both in heaven and on earth) ; who 
for us men, and for our salvation, came down from 
heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Vir- 
gin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified for us 
under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and 
the third day rose again, according to the Scriptures, and 
ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the 
Father, and comes again with glory to judge the living 
and the dead; whose kingdom will have no end. 

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who 
proceeds from the Father [and the Son],' who together 
with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, 
who spoke through the prophets. 

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We ac- 
knowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We 
look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the 
world to come. Amen. 


(But those who say, There was when he was not; and, Be- 
fore he was begotten he was not; and, He was made out of 


1 Added at the Council of Toledo, 589. 


APPENDIX 473 


nothing; or who profess that he is of a different person or 
substance, or created, or changeable, or variable, are con- 


demned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church. ) 


C. THE ATHANASIAN CREED 


This Creed (see page 25) was long supposed to have come 
from Athanasius himself, but it is of unknown date and 
source. It was composed under the influence of St. Augus- 
tine, and is believed to have originated in Southern Gaul in 
the fifth century or later, as an explanation of the Nicene 
Creed. It*was accepted only in the Western Church. Its 
required use on certain occasions in the worship of the 
Church of England has served to keep the doctrine of the 
Trinity unusually prominent in English theology. It is 
sometimes referred to by the first words of its Latin form, 
as the Quicumque vult. 

1. Whosoever would be saved, before all things it is 
necessary that he hold the catholic faith, 

2. Which except one keep entire and inviolate, he will 
without doubt perish everlastingly. 

3. Now the catholic faith is this: that we worship one 

God in a Trinity, and the Trinity in a Unity; 

4, Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the 
substance. 

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of 
the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. | 

6. But the divinity of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Spirit, is one, the glory equal, the majesty co- 
eternal. 

7. As is the Father, so is the Son, and so is the Holy 

Spirit. 

8. The Father is uncreated, the Son uncreated, the 

Holy Spirit uncreated. 


AT 4s OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


9. The Father is immeasurable, the Son immeasurable, 
the Holy Spirit immeasurable. 

10. The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy 
Spirit eternal. 

11. And yet there are not three eternal, but one eternal. 

12. Just as there are not three uncreated, nor three 
immeasurable, but one uncreated, and one immeasurable. 

13. Likewise the Father is omnipotent, the Son omnipo- 
tent, and the Holy Spirit omnipotent. 

14, And yet there are not three omnipotent, but one 
omnipotent. 

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy 
Spirit is God. 

16. And yet there are not three Gods, but there is one 
God. 

17. So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the 
Holy Spirit is Lord. 

18. And yet there are not three Lords, but there is one 
Lord. 

19. For just as we are compelled by Christian truth to 
acknowledge each person by himself as both God and Lord, 

20. So we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say 
three Gods, or three Lords. 

21. The Father was not made by any one, nor created, 
nor begotten. 

22. The Son is from the Father alone; not made, nor 
created, but begotten. 

23. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; 
not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 

24, Therefore there is one Father, not three Fathers; 
one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy 
Spirits. 

25. And in this Trinity there is no before or after, no 
greater or less. 

26. But the whole three persons are co-eternal with one 
another, and co-equal. 


27. So that in all things, just as has already been said 


APPENDIX 475 


above, both the Unity is to be worshiped in a Trinity, and 
the Trinity in a Unity. 

28. Let him therefore that would be saved think thus of 
the Trinity. 


29. But it is necessary to eternal salvation that one 
faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. 

30. Now the right -faith is that we believe and confess 
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is equally 
God and man. 

31. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten be- 
fore the worlds, and man, of the substance of his mother, 
born in the world. 

32. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting of a rational 
soul and a human body. 

33. In his divinity equal to the Father, in his humanity 
less than the Father. 

34. Who, although he be God and man, yet is not two, 
but one Christ. 

35. One, moreover, not by converting his divinity into 
flesh, but by taking up his humanity into God. 

36. Wholly one, not by confusion of substance, but by 
unity of person. 

37. For just as a rational soul and a human body is 
one man, so God and man is one Christ. 

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, 
the third day rose again from the dead, 

39. Ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God 
the Father almighty, 

40. Whence he is to come to judge the living and the 
dead. 

41. At whose coming all men have to rise again with 
their bodies, 

42, And are to render account of their deeds. 


476 OUR UNITARIAN HERITAGE 


43. And they that have done good will go into life 
eternal; but they that have done evil, into fire eternal. 


44. This is the catholic faith, which except one be- 
lieve faithfully and firmly, he can not be saved. 


INDEX 


(Note: The pronunciation of foreign names likely to be mispro- 
nounced is approximately indicated in brackets following the names. 
Pronounce ay as in day; ch, like the German ch; dh, like the th in the; 
eh, like the e in bed; err, as in berry; gh, like the g in go; gy, like the 
d in educate; ly, as in halyard; n, like the French nasal n; 6, as in 
German, or like the French ew in fleur; ow, as in cow; ss, aS in mass; 


wu, as in German, or like the French wu; zh, like the z in azure.) 


Abbot, Abiel, 403, 413 

Abernethy, John (ab’-er-ne-thy), 
340 

Aconzio, Giacomo (jah’-co-mo 
ah-cont’-see-o), 291, 293, 314 

Act of Uniformity, 287f., 307, 328f. 

Aikenhead, Thomas, 294, 323 

Alba, Julia, 218 

Albigenses, 213, 216 

Alciati, Giovanni Paolo (jo-vahn’- 
nee pah’-o-lo ahl-chah’-tee), 
105f., 108 

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, 
16, 17, 20-23 

Alexandria, church and council at, 
15-17, 28 

Alliance of Unitarian Women, 460 

Almasi, Bishop (awl’-mah-shee), 
260 

Altona (ahl’-to-nah), Socinians at, 
188f. 

Altorf (ahl’-torf), Socinians at, 
158, 196f. 

Alva, Duke of (ahl’-vah), 224 

Alvinezi, George (awl’-vint-see), 
234f. 

amende honorable, 107 

American Unitarian Association, 
420-422, 429-431, 441-444, 446- 
450, 455f., 458, 460f. 

American Unitarianism, 411 

Amherst College, 408 


Amsterdam, Socinians at, 202, 204, 
256 

Anabaptists, rise and _ teachings, 
41, 43-50; in Italy, 66-69; coun- 
cil at Venice, 67f., 75, 118; ban- 
ished from the Grisons, 77f.; ad- 


vocate toleration, 98; in Mo- 
ravia, 68, 108, 113, 144; in 


Poland, 125, 141f., 150; Polish 
Antitrinitarians seek union with, 
143f.; doctrines in Poland, 127- 
129, 138-140, 146, 163, 202, 205; 
in Holland, 195; in Transyl- 
vania, 216; in England, 290-295 


Andover Theological Seminary, 
407, 
Andreaswalde (ahn’-dray-ahss- 


vahl-da), 191 

Andrew, John A., 450 

Anglicans, 288; see also Church 
of England 

Ann Arbor, church at, 451 

Annemasse (ahn-mahss’), 100 

Antioch College, 451 

anti-slavery, 440, 461 

Antitrinitarianism, among Ana- 
baptists, 43-50; in northern 
Italy, 65-69; in the Grisons, 70- 
(See ate Geneva. 1101-10724 at 
Ziirich, 111-116; at Basel, 116- 
118; in Poland, 70, 126-177 

Antitrinitarians, 39; in Moravia, 


477 


478 


106, 114; in Poland, 126-177; 
called Anabaptists, 93, 109; 
called Tritheists, 142; excluded 
from Reformed Church, 1383- 
135, 199; banished from Poland, 
133, 142; in Holland, 195-205; 
see also Unitarianism, Socinian- 
ism 

Antrim, Presbytery of, 340 

Apaffi, Prince Michael I (aw’- 
pawf-fee), 183, 256 

Apollinaris, 28 

Apologists’ teaching about Jesus, 
12-14, 31 

Apostles’ Creed, 471; accepted by 
Antitrinitarians, 127, 132, 161, 
176, 223 

Aran, Thomas (aw’-rawn), 216 

Arianism, 17; in Transylvania, 213, 
216; in England, 292f., 313, 333f., 
355n., 357, 359, 384; in Church of 
England, 325f.; among  Dis- 
senters, chap. xxx; in Ireland, 
333; in Wales, 336, 339; in 
America, 393, 395f., 398, 401, 
409f., 412f. 

Arians, 16-26; leading reformers 
called, 39f.; banished from the 
Grisons, 77f.; in Poland, 130, 
137-139, 451; opposed by Unita- 
rians in England, 368, 371 

Arius, 16f., 20, 22f. 

Arminianism in England, 288, 313, 
358; in Massachusetts, 393, 395, 
397 

Arminius, 196 

Arpad (ahr’-pahd), 211 

Articles of Religion, see Thirty- 
nine Articles 

Assheton, John (ash’ -ton), 292 

Association for Protection of Civil 
Rights of Unitarians, 377f. 

astrology, 78f. 

Athanasian Creed, 473-476 25, 
31f., 40f.; opposed in Poland, 
127, 182, 146; in England, 314, 


INDEX 


315n., 316f., 323, 326, 334, 343f., 
347; in America, 398f. 
Athanasians, 21 
Athanasius, 20, 23, 25f. 
atonement, doctrine of, 34, 47, 114, 
200, 205 
Attila (at’-ti-lah), 210 
Augsburg, 56, 111 
Augsburg Confession, 56 
Augustine, Saint (aw-gus’-tin), 
34, 473 
Augustine of Canterbury, 285 
Augustinowics, Paul (ow’-goos- 
tee-no-vich), 184, 268 
Austerlitz (ow’-ster-lits), 113 
Austria, 238, 248, 259, 271f. 
Autumnal Convention, 442, 447 
Avars (ay’-varz), 210, 213 


Bagot, Daniel, 379 
Bagyon (bah’-gyon), church at, 
264 


Balasz, Stephen  (baw’-lahss), 
233f. 

Ballou, Hosea, 402 

Baltimore, church at, 414, 418, 


421; Channing’s sermon at, 414, 
418, 423 

Bancroft, Aaron, 404 

baptism, controversies on in Po- 
land, 136-139, 150 

Baptists, 330, 381; spring from 
Anabaptists, 46 

Baranya County 
yaw), 234 

Barbauld, Mrs. A. L., 385n. 

Barbiano, General (bahr-bee-ah’- 
no), 249 

Barker, Joseph, 383 

Barnard, Thomas, 400 

Barnevelt, N. Y., church at, 389n. 

Basel (bah’-zel), Antitrinitarian- 
ism at, 46-49, 109, 116f., 117n., 
149 

Basilius, Stephen, 233 

Bassen, Conradin (con’-rah-deen 
bahss’-sen), 49 


(bawr’-awn- 


INDEX 


Basta, General (bahsh’-taw), 248- 
250 

Bathori (bah’-to-ree), Christopher, 
237f., 241-243; Sigismund (sij’- 
iss-mund), 238, 248, 251; 
Stephen, 166, 236f., 247 

Baxter, Richard, 313 

Beecher, Lyman, 419, 421-424, 426, 
436 

Bekes, Gaspar (gahsh’-pahr bay’- 
kaysh), 228, 235-237n., 239, 249n. 

Belfast, controversy at, 379 

Belknap, Jeremy, 401 

Bellows, Henry W., 447, 450 

Belsham, Thomas, 370-372, 375, 
379, 383; his beliefs, 411f.; his 
life of Lindsey, 411; influence in 
America, 399, 427 

Bentley, William, 400, 410 

Beresko (bay-res’-ko), church at, 
172 

Bern (berrn), 96, 103, 109 

Besozzo, Antonio Maria (ahn-to’- 
nee-o mah-ree’-ah bay-zot’-zo), 
116 

Best, Paul, 297 

Besztercze (bess’-terr-tseh), 220 

Bethlen, Gabriel (bet’-len), 250, 
252f. 

Beza, Theodore, 99, 103, 106, 109, 
180n., 222 

Biandrata, Giorgio (jor’-jo bee- 
ahn-drah’-tah), in the Grisons, 
104; at Geneva, 104-106, 118; in 
Poland, 104, 129, 182; in Tran- 
sylvania, 132, 136, 217-223, 225, 
237, 239-242, 244f., 251; death, 
245; character, 244 

Bible, a source of Unitarianism, 
290, 300; the English, 286, 290, 
296 

Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 
202 

Biddle, see Bidle 

Bidellians, 303 

Bidle, John (bid’-dl), chap. xxviii; 
298, 352n., 369 


479 


Bielsk (byelsk), 168 

Birmingham, New Meeting, 362; 
riots, 365f., 376 

Bishop, office of, 237, 273, 278 

Blackburne, Francis, 345f., 348f., 
351, 354 

Blandrata, see Biandrata 

Blasphemy Act, 289, 323, 376 

Bockenheim (bock’-en-hime), 49 

Bocskai, Stephen (boch’-koy), 
249f., 253 

Bohemian Brethren, 125, 179, 185 

Bologna (bo-lone’-yah), 55 

Bolsec (bol-zek’), 95 

Bona Sforza (bo’-nah sfort’-sah), 
104, 126, 129, 217 

Book of Common Prayer, see 
Prayer Book 

Borrhaus (bor-ray’-oos), 46 

Boston, Puritan churches at, 391; 
liberalism at, 410; First Church, 
429; Second Church, 433, 435; 
Association of Congregational 
Ministers, 438f.; Twenty-eighth 
Congregational Society, 440; 
School for the Ministry, 453 

Bowring, Sir John, 385n. 

Brandenburg, Socinians in, 189f. 

Brasso (brawsh’-sho), 249, 265 

Brest, synods at, 127, 151 


Brest Litovsk (lee-tofsk’), 127 


Briant, Lemuel, 397 

Brief History of the Unitarians, 
310, 316 

Brief Notes on the Creed of St. 
Athanasius, 316 

Brieg, Duke of (breek), 184f. 

Brimstone Corner, 409 

Bristol, controversy at, 379 

British and Foreign Unitarian 
Association, 378, 420 

Brook Farm, 432 

Brookfield, Mass., church divided 
at, 425 

Brooklyn, Conn., church at, 403 

Brugge, Jan van (yahn vahn 
broog’-ga), 48. 


480 


Bucer, Martin (boot’-sir), 57, 59 

Buda (boo’-daw), 235 

Budapest (boo’-daw-pesht), 274 

Budny, Simon (bood’-ny), 1839, 
239n. 

Buffalo, church at, 431 

Bull, Bishop George, 315 

Burgundians, 210; converted to 
Arianism, 25 

Burke, Edmund, 364 

Burns, Robert, 340n., 374 

Bury, Arthur, 310n., 319 

Butzer, see Bucer 


Ceesarea (sess-a-ree’-a), 21 

Calabria (cah-lah’-bree-ah), 106 

Calcutta, mission at, 444 

California, church extension in, 
445, 451 

Calvin, 108, 1382, 222, 287; sketch 
of his life, 89-91; at first dis- 
approves of Trinity, 40;  be- 
comes more orthodox, 63; meets 
Servetus, 79; his Institutes, 88, 
86, 89; corresponds with Ser- 
vetus, 82f.; threatens his life, 
83f.; denounces him to Arch- 
bishop of Lyon, 85; brings about 
his death, 89-97; condemned for 
this, 98f., 180n.; death, 104; 
character and services, 99f. 

Calvinism, 34, 196, 281; in Hun- 
gary, 216, 258; in England, 
287f., 331; in Wales, 339; in 
America, 391, 393, 396, 397. 
See also Presbyterianism, Re- 
formed Church 

Calvinists, 157, 215, 219, 221, 227, 
233, 236, 288, 412f. 

Cambridge, Mass., church divided 
at, 424 

Camillo, see Renato 

Campanus, Johannes’ (yo-hahn’- 
ness cahm-pah’-noos), 47 

Capito (cah’-pee-to), 57 

Cardiganshire, churches in, 339 

Carlyle, Thomas, 432 


INDEX 


Carmarthen, Dissenting academy 
at, 339 

Carpathians, 182, 209 

Carpenter, Lant, 
385n. 

Castellio, 99 

Catechism, Schomann’s, 141, 159; 
Socinus’, 159; Racovian, see 
Racovian; Biddle’s, 304f.; West- 
minster, 408 

Catholic Church, 38f., 41, 65, 68, 
70-72, 124f., 2138, 237 

Catholics point to Protestant in- 
tolerance, 98, 180n. 

Catterick, 349f., 353 


379; Mary, 


Cellarius  (tsel-lah’-ree-oos), 46, 
118 
Celso, Mino (mee’-no chel’-so), 


117 

Cerberus, Servetus calls Trinity a, 
84 ; 

Chalcedon (cal-see’-don), Council 
of, 30, 32 

Champel (shahn-pel’), 97 

Channing, William Ellery, 274, 
411-415, 420, 423, 425f., 433, 439; 
influence in England, 383; Bal- 
timore sermon, 414, 418, 428 

Charles I, 288; II, 288, 307, 328; 
Vy. S5f.3) Vi, 2611720 xe cee 
176, 188 

Charleston, S. C., church at, 418 

Charlieu (shahrl-yd’), 81 

Chatillon (shah-teely-yon’), 99, 
117f., 128 

Chauncy, Charles, 395f. 

Chiavenna (kee-ah-ven’-nah), 177, 
112, 114 

Chicago, church at, 431, 459 

Chillingworth, William, 313 

Chmielnik (chmyel’-nyik), 166n. 

Christ, :deity? .of, 11f.5° 225002 
“eternally begotten,” 16; two 
natures of, 28-32; worship of, 
138f., 150, 160, 289-242, 246, 254, 
279, 307, 354, 362 


INDEX 


Christian, Albert, Duke of Hol- 
stein, 189 

Christian Commission, 447 

Christian Connection, 427n. 

Christian Examiner, 420, 435 

Christian Register, The, 420, 435 

Christianismi Restitutio, 84-87, 91 

Church of England, 286-288, 324, 
355, 363, 381 

Cincinnati, church at, 4380; Con- 
ference at, 463 

Civil Rights Association, 377f. 

Civil War, American, 448, 445f., 
450, 459, 461 

Clarke, James Freeman, 439, 442 

Clarke, Samuel, 324-327, 332-335, 
337, 339, 344, 346, 355, 370; 
influence in America, 398, 398 

Clement, of Alexandria, 14; VII, 
Pope, 55 

Codman, John, 408f., 412 

Cole, Peter, 294 

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 432; on 
Servetus, 100n. 

Collegiants, 201-203, 260 

Colloquium Charitativum, 156 

Columbia College, 451 

Complanatio Deesiana, 254 

Confessional, The, 345 

Confessions, Protestant, 41, 56 

Congregationalists, 381, 384, 405, 
413f, 

Connecticut, Unitarianism in, 402f. 

Consensus Sandomiriensis, 134, 164 

consociations, 402, 413 

Constantine, 19-23 

Constantinople, 19, 23, 28, 37; 
Council of, 24, 28, 31 

Constantius, 24 

Conventicle Act, 329n. 

Convention, National 
448-450 

Cook, Captain James, 361 

Cooke, Joseph, 374 

Copenhagen, 188 

Copernicus, 123 

Cornell University, 451 


Unitarian, 


481 


Corporation Act, 329n., 363, 364n., 
377f. 

“corruptions of Christianity,” 32 

Cosimo de’ Medici (coz’-ee-mo day 
may’-dee-chee), 149, 218 

Cossack war, 172f. 
Council of Constantinople, Nica, 
etc., see the respective words 
Councils of the Church, their char- 
acter, 32 

covenants in American churches, 
392 

Creed, Apostles’, etc., see the re- 
spective words 

creed, Unitarian, urged, 384, 453, 
456 

creeds adopted in Massachusetts 
churches, 392, 405, 413 

Crellius, John, 310n.; Christopher, 
304n.; Paul, 297; Samuel, 189f., 
297; Stephen and Joseph, 190 

Croft, Bishop Herbert, 314 

Cromwell, Oliver, 288, 306, 309, 
313 

Curione, Celio Secondo (chay’- 
lee-o | say-con’-do _—coo0-ree’-0- 
nay), l17f., 128 

Cutlers’ Hall, 333 

Cyril of Alexandria (seer’-il), 28 

Czechowicz, Martin (chech-o’- 
vich), 137, 139f. 


Dacia Mediterranea, 210 

Dajka, Bishop (doy’-kaw), 252 

Dall, C. H. A., 445 

Danzig, (dahn’-tsich), 106, 171f,, 
203 

Darwin, Erasmus, 385n. 

Daventry Academy, 358, 370 

David, Ferencz (dah’-vid ferr’- 
ents), 220n. 

David, Francis, (dah’-vid), 215, 
217, 219-231, 236-245; trial and 
death, 242f.; character, 243f. 

De Trinitatis Erroribus, and Dia- 
logues of Servetus, 58-62 

Debates on religion, 156, 222; at 


4.82 
Piotrkow, 133; at Gyulafeher- 
var, 225f.; at Nagyvarad, 227.; 
at Buda, 235; at Pecs, 235 

Debreczen (deb’-ret-sen), 216, 223, 
225, 233 

Dedham case, 414-417, 425 

Dees (deh’-aysh), Diet at, 254 

Deism, 327 

Deity of Christ, see Christ 

Demetrius, pretended Czar, 152 

Denck, Hans (hahnss denk), 47, 
57, 74 

Detroit, church at, 445 

Deva (day’-vaw), 243 

Devonshire, Unitarianism in, 336 

Dial, The, 432 

Diploma Leopoldinum, 259, 265 

Disney, John, 353, 371 

Dissent, 289 

Dissenters, 329f. 

Dissenters’ Chapels Bill, 381f. 

Dissenting academies, 334, 339, 
351, 358f. 

Dissidents, 125, 145, 152, 180 

Divinity School Address, 483- 
436 

Dorchester, Mass., Second Church, 
408f. 

Dort, Synod of, 198 

Draconic Ordinance, 298, 302 

Dudicz, Andrew (doo’-dits), 143 

Dundee, church at, 374 


Eaton, David, 373 

Ebionites (eeb’-yon-ites), 9; Anti- 
trinitarians called, 134 

Edgeworth, Maria, 385n. 

Edinburgh, church at, 374 

Edward VI, 292, 438 

Edwards, Jonathan, 394 

Egri, Lukas (eg’-ree), 233 

Ejected clergy, 288, 329, 344, 350 

election, doctrine of, 34 

Eliot, William G., 447 

Elizabeth, Queen, 112, 287f., 293, 
328 

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 433, 441, 


INDEX 


443, 454; Divinity School Ad- 
dress, 433-436, 441 

Emerson, William, 433 

Emlyn, Thomas, 308, 331-335, 337, 
336n., 339f., 352n.; his Humble 
Inquiry, 332 ; reprinted at Bos- 
ton, 390, 395, 401; read in 
America, 393 

English and Transylvanian Unita- 
rians discover each other, 269f. 

Kossi, Andrew (eh’-dsh-shee), 251, 
253 

Ephesus, Council of, 29, 31 

Episcopal Church, 444; liberalism 
in, 3l5n., 398f., 403 

Erasmus, 39, 57, 98, 116 

Erfurt (err’-foort), 54n. 

Erlangen (err’-lahng-en), 158n. 

Essex Hall, 358n. 

Essex Street Chapel, 352, 371 

Esztergom (ess’-terr-gom), 233 

eternal punishment opposed, 49, 
75, 396, 422 

Eusebius, Bishop of Cesarea, 21, 
23 

Eutyches (eu’-ti-keez), 29 

Eutychians (eu-tik’-i-anz), 30 

Evangelical Unitarian Association, 
456 

exclusive policy, 408, 414, 425 

Exeter, England, Arianism at, 
335f. 

“exiled churches,” 417 


Farel (fah-rel’), 40, 83, 90, 97 

Farges (fahrzh), 102-105, 107f. 

Farnovians, Farnovius, Farnowski 
(fahr-nof’-skee), 138 

Feathers’ Tavern Petition, 346f., 
350f., 354 

Federal Street Church, Boston, 
412, 420 

Ferdinand and Isabella, 53 


Ferencz, Bishop Joseph (ferr’- 
ents), 280 

Filipowski (fil-ip-of’-skee), 142- 
144 


INDEX 483 

Firmin, Thomas, 308-311, 316n., tee’-lay), attacks Trinity at 
818, 821, 352; aids Socinians, Geneva and in France, 106-109; 
179 in Poland and Moravia, 108, 


Fitchburg, Mass., church at, 405, 
413 

Five Mile Act, 329n. 

foreign missions, 444f. 

Fourth Gospel, see John, Gospel 
of 

Francesco of Calabria 
chess’-co), 74 

Francis I, 267f. 

Franck, Adam (frahnk), 297 

Francken, Christian (frahnk’-en), 
166n. 

Frankfurt (frahnk’-foort), 
85, 87n.; on the Oder, 189 

Franklin, Benjamin, 353, 360, 367 

Frederick III, King of Denmark, 
188; III, Elector, 187; William, 
Great Elector, 176, 189-192; the 
Great, 193 

Free Christian Union, 384 

Free Religious Association, 454f., 
457, 462 

Freeke, William, 318 

Freeman, James, 398-400, 403, 409, 
41] 

Frellon (frel-lon’), 82, 85 

Friedrichstadt (freed’-rich-shtaht), 
188, 198 

Friends, Society of, 314; see also 
Quakers 

Friesland (freez’-land), 46, 203f. 

Fiinfkirchen (fiinf’-keer-chen), 
234 


(frahn- 


63n., 


Gailhard, John, 323 

Gaskell, Mrs., 385n. 

Gay, Ebenezer, 396 

General Baptists, 324, 338f., 372f. 

General Councils, 19, 24n. 

Geneva, 90f., 287, 340n.; Italian 
church at, 102, 104-106, 149, 291; 
Antitrinitarianism at, 101-107 

Gentile, Giovanni Valentino (jo- 
vahn’-nee_ vahl-en-tee’-no jen- 


129; beheaded at Bern, 109; ac- 
cused of tritheism, 131n., 321 
Georgia, Socinians in, 190 
Gepidae (jep’-i-dee), 210 
Germany, Antitrinitarians 
secuted in, 186f. 
Gex (zhex), 109 
Gibraltar, church at, 379 
Gladstone, W. E., 347n., 382 
Glasgow, church at, 375, 378f. 
Gonesius (go-nay’-zee-00s), 
129, 180, 1382, 187f., 140 
Goniondz, Peter of (go’-nyondz), 
127 
Goodwin, John, 308 
Gospels, their doctrine, 8f., 31 
Goths, converted to Arian Chris- 
tianity, 25; in Transylvania, 210, 
213, 216 
Gran (grahn), 233 
Granada (grah-nah’-dhah), 53 
Great Awakening, 393f., 402 
Great Poland, 143, 146 
Greek influence on 
thought, 11, 13 
Grenoble (greh-nobl’), 104, 107 
Gribaldo, Matteo (maht-tay’-o 
gree-bahl’-do), 98, 102-104, 107f. 
Grisons (gree-zon’), Antitrinita- 
rianism in the, 65f., 72-74, 104, 
106, 117, 214 
Grosswardein 
debate at, 227 
Groton, church divided at, 424 
Gyulafehervar ( gyoo’-law-feh- 
hayr-vahr), 218, 220, 228, 232, 
234, 238, 245, 249; debate at, 
228, 225, 226n. 


per- 


127, 


Christian 


(gross’-var-dine), 


Hackney, church at, 366; academy, 
370 

Hagenau (hah’-ghen-ow), 58 

Hale, Edward Everett, 426n. 

Hamburg (hahm’-boork), 189 


48 4 


Hamont, Matthew, 294 

Hanover Street Church, Boston, 
421 

Harris, George, 378 

Harvard College, liberalism at, 
394, 4061, 406f., 426, 451; Divin- 
ity School, 408n., 420, 433-436, 
441, 459 

Harvey, William, 80 

Haynau, General (hi’-now), 271 

Hazlitt, William, 399, 403 

Heidelberg (hi’-del-berrk), 
186f. 

Helvetic Confession, 110, 223 

Henry III, 166; VIII, 286, 292; 
of Valois (vahl-wah’), 166 

Hepworth, George H., 456, 457n. 

Heresy, civil punishment for, 22, 
24, 37; laws against in Con- 
necticut, 402n.; in Maryland and 
Virginia, 391n.; in Massachu- 
setts, 391; punishment for in 
England, 285, 289, 293; in Ven- 
ice, 69 

Hewley, see Lady Hewley 

Hicksite Friends, 427n. 

Holland, Socinianism in, chap. xx; 
Socinians in, 17n.; 181, 185, 188, 
190, 192f., 195-205 

Hollis, Thomas, 406; 
ship, 406f. 

Holmes, Abiel, 424; Oliver Wen- 
dell, 424 

Holstein (hole’-stine), 
in, 179, 181, 188f., 197 

Holy Spirit, deity of adopted, 25; 
controversy about in Poland, 


158, 


professor- 


Socinians 


137 

Horsley, Samuel, 362f. 

Hosius, Cardinal  (ho’-see-oos), 
164f, 


Humanism, 37, 70 

Hungary, 209, 211-213, 232, 248, 
273f.; Unitarianism in, 216, 232- 
235, 257f., 274; aid to Unitarian 
church in, 460 

Huns, 210f. 


INDEX 


Huntington, Bishop Frederick D., 
44,4, 

Hunyadi, Bishop Demetrius 
(hoon’-yah-dee), 247, 251 

Hus, John (hoos), 125 

Hussites, in Poland, 125, 175; in 
Transylvania, 213 

Huszt (hoost), 182 


Imitation of Christ, 43 

Improved Version of New Testa- 
ment, 372 

Independents, 288, 328, 330, 358, 
380 

India, mission to, 379, 445, 460 

Indians, mission among, 445 

innovation in religion forbidden, 
236, 240, 242, 251 

Inquisition, in Spain, 54, 224; in 
Italy, 68, 71-74, 224; in France, 
81, 87, 98 

International Congress of Free 
Christians, 465 

Trenzeus (i-ree-nee’-us), 13 

Isabella de’ Medici (day may’-dee- 
chee), 149 

Isabella, Princess of Poland, 104; 
Queen of Hungary, 212, 214, 217 

“issue in the West,” 463 

Italian church at Geneva, 102, 104- 
106, 149, 291 

Italian Unitarians in England, 290 

Italy, Antitrinitarianism in, 65- 
69 

Ithaca, church at, 451 


Jagiello 
124 
James I, 197, 288, 294, 296; II, 
309 

Japan, mission to, 465 

Jefferson, Thomas, 367 

Jesuits, in Poland, 151, 155f., 165- 
167, 169f., 177, 238; in Transyl- 
vania, 238-240, 245, 248f.; in 
Austria, 257, 260-262 


dynasty (yahg-yel’-lo), 


INDEX 


Jesus, Gospel teaching about, 8, 
31 

Jevons, Prof. W. S., 385n. 

Jews driven from Spain, 53; re- 
pelled from Christianity by the 
Trinity, 9, 53f., 61 

John, Gospel of, teaching about 
Jesus, 10f., 31 

John Casimir (cas’-i-meer), 174, 
176; III, 188n.; Sigismund (sij’- 
iss-mund), 212, 217-219, 224f., 
231, 235; Zapolya (zah’-pol- 
yaw), 212, 214 

Jones, Sir William, 385n. 

Joris, David (jo’-ris), 48f., 98, 
109, 116 

Joseph II, 267 

Judaizers, 251 

Justin Martyr, 13 

Justinian, 30 


Kansas, first church in, 445 

Karadi, Paul (kaw’-rah-dee), 234 

Karl Ludwig (loot’-vich), 187, 
188n. 

Karlsburg (karlss’-boork), 218 

Karolyfehervar (kah’-roly-feh- 
hayr-vahr), 218 

Kassa (kawsh’-shaw), 233 

Kautz, Jakob (yah’-kop kowts), 49 

Kesmark (kaysh’-mahrk), 182 

Ket, Francis, 294 

Kief (kee’-ef), 146 

Kijow (kee’-yoof), 146 

King’s Chapel, Boston, 325n., 355, 
390, 399, 403 

Kisielin (kee-chel’-in), 171f. 

Kiszka, Jan (yahn kish’-kah), 128, 
128n. 

Klausenburg 
220 

Kleve (clay’-fa), 48 

Knowles, John, 308 

Kolozsvar (kol’-ozh-vahr), 221f., 
226, 229-231, 238f., 242, 250f., 255, 
261, 268; Socinians at, 182, 184, 
191, 256; church at, 247, 249, 


(klow’-zen-boork), 


485 


260-263, 267f.; school and col- 
lege at, 230, 239, 247, 256f., 260f., 
265f., 268, 276f.; synods at, 191, 
238, 246 

Konez, Bishop (konts), 257 

KGnigsberg (k6-nichs-berrk), 136, 
19If. 

Konsinovo (kon-chee-no’-vo), 191, 
193 

Krakow (krah’-koof), 113, 123, 
126, 130, 189-141, 146, 150, 152, 
166-168, 173f., 176, 188; synod 
at, 143 

Kreuzburg  (kroyts’-boork), So- 
cinians at, 184-186, 199; synods 
at, 185, 187, 191 

Kronstadt (krone’-shtaht), 249 


Lady Hewley case, 380f., 382 

la Fontaine, Nicholas de (nee-co- 
lah’ de lah fon-tayn’), 89, 91, 
93 

Lancut (lahn’-tsoot), synod at, 137 

Laodicea, 28 

Latitudinarianism, 295, 313f. 

Laud, Archbishop, 297 

Lausanne (lo-zahn’), 84, 98, 117 

Laymen’s League, 465 

Legate, Bartholomew, 
Thomas, 294 

Leiden, Socinians at, 158, 
206n., 256 

Leo I, Pope, 29 

Leopold I, 259f.; II, 267 

Lewartow (lay-vahr’-toof), synod 
at, 154 

Lewes, John (lu’-ess), 294 

Liberal Christian, The, 453 

Libertines at Geneva, 90f. 

liberum veto, 175 

Lindsey, Theophilus, chap. xxxi; 
327, 347-355, 361, 366, 373, 375; 
revises Prayer Book, 351-353, 
390; influence in America, 398- 
400, 402 

Lismanino, 


294, 296; 


POGT?, 


Francesco (frahn- 


486 


chess’-co_ liss-mah-nee’-no), 126, 
129, 136, 144 

Lithuania, 124, 237n.; Antitrini- 
tarianism in, 127f., 1382, 137- 
139, 146, 151f., 166, 173, 190f., 
239n. 

Little Poland, 127, 129, 131, 144, 
146, 173f. 

Liturgy, see Prayer Book 

Liverpool, controversy at, 379, 383 

Locarno, Protestant church at, 
Litas 

Locke, John, 322, 431 

Logos (log’-oss), 10-14, 16n., 31 

Lombards, 210; converted to 
Arian Christianity, 25 

Lord’s Supper, controversies con- 
cerning, 214f., 219, 221 

Louisville, church at, 431 

Lower Hungary, 216, 234f., 248, 
257; Bishop of, 248, 257 

Lubieniecki, Stanislaw (stahn-iss’- 
lahf loob-yen-yet’-skee), 187-189 

Lublin (loob’-lin), church at, 169; 
Diet of, 142 

Lucca (look’-kah), 114n., 117 

Luclawice (loots-lah-vee’-tsay), 
158, 171, 256 

Luther, 38, 47, 59, 112; 
Trinity, 39 

Lutheranism, 286 

Lutherans, in Poland, 125f.; in 
Transylvania, 211, 213-215, 219, 
220f., 226, 231, 236, 263; oppose 
Socinians and Unitarians, 143, 
157, 172, 187-189, 191-198, 236 

Lyell, Sir Charles, 385n. 

Lyon (lee-on’), 79, 82, 85, 87, 98, 
108, 149 

Lyons, 13, 79 


dislikes 


Macaulay, Lord, 382 

Madras, mission at, 379 

Magee, Archbishop William, 379 

magnates in Poland, 124 

Magyars (maw’-gyawrs), 
214f. 


211, 


INDEX 


Maine, churches founded in, 400 

Manchester, England, controversy 
at, 380 

Manchester New College, 383n. 

Manelfi, Pietro (pee-ay’-tro mah- 
nel’-fee), 67f., 75 

Mann, Horace, 451 

Mannheim (mahn’-hime), Socini- 
ans at, 187, 188n. 

Mappa, Col. A. G., 389n. 

Maria Theresia (mah-ree’-ah terr- 
ay’-zee-ah), 262f., 267, 279 

Marliano, Girolamo  (jee-rol’-ah- 
mo mahr-lee-ah’-no), 75 

Marmaros County (mahr’-mo- 
rosh), 182 

Maros Vasarhely (maw’-rosh vah’- 

shahr-hely), Diet of, 231 

Martineau, James, 383, 384 

Mary, Mother of God, 28 

Mary, Queen, 112, 287, 293 

Massachusetts Bay Colony, Puri- 
tan churches in, 391 

Massachusetts Convention of Con- 
gregational Ministers, 425 

Massachusetts General  Associa- 
tion of Ministers, 408 

Masuria, 191 

Mather, eM iGeeen, ahi 393 

Maximilian IT, 

Mayhew, Taueenai 396, 402 

Meadville Theological School, 445, 
Ad5lf., 455, 459 

Melanchthon, 38, 40, 46f., 59, 63, 
66, 81, 84, 127; approves Ser- 
vetus’s death, 98 

Melius, Peter (may’-lee-oos), 216, 
221-225, 227-229, 233 

Mennonites, 188f., 199,  202f.; 
spring from Anabaptists, 46, 
202; Socinians seek union with, 
155, 189, 203 

Methodism, 196 

Methodist New Connexion, 383 

Methodists, 347, 360, 381 

Michael, King of Poland, 192 

Michigan, University of, 451 





INDEX 


Milan (mil’-an), 106 

Mill Hill Chapel, Leeds, 360 

Milton, John, 313 

Milwaukee, church at, 445 

Ministers’ Institute, 460 

Minor Reformed Church of Po- 
land, 135-140, 142f., 145f., 148n., 
153f., 164, 209 

miracles, the foundation of Chris- 
tianity, 435, 437, 441 

Mitrovicz (mit’-ro-vits), 216 

Mobile, 431 

Modrzewski (mod-zhef’-skee), 144 

Mohammedans repelled from 
Christianity by Trinity, 9n., 53f., 
61 


Monarchianism, 15f. 

Mo-noph’-y-sites, 31 

Mo-noth’-e-lites, 31 

Montpellier (mon-pel-yay’), 104 

Montrose, church at, 374 

Moors driven from Spain, 53 

Moravia, Anabaptists in, 68, 108, 
113, 140, 144, 187; Antitrinitari- 
ans in, 106, 108, 114 

Mordy (mor’-dy), synod at, 131 

Morse, Jedidiah, 407f., 410-413, 
419; S. F. B., 407n. 

Morsztyn (mor’-shtin), 178, 194 

Moskorzowski (mos-ko-zhof’-skee), 
159 

Miuhlhausen (miil’-how-zen), 113 

Miinster (miin’-ster), 45 

Music Hall, Boston, 440 

Mystics, 43, 45, 50 


Neeranus (nah-rah’-noos), 179 

Nagy Enyed (nawgy en’-yed), 
synod at, 215, 219, 237 

Nagyvarad (nawgy’-vah-rawd), 
227, 233f., 238, 243, 249 

Naked Gospel, 310n., 319 

Naked Truth, 314 

Nantwich, 359 

Naples, Reformation at, 71 

National Alliance, 469; Confer- 
ence, 448, 450-456, 458f., 462, 


487 


696; Federation of 
Liberals, 465 
Navarre (nah-vahr’), 53 
Nestorians, 29 
Nestorius, 28f. 
Neuchatel (né-shah-tel’), 83, 97 
euser, Adam (noy’-zer), 186 
Yew Bedford, church at, 409, 457 
New Hampshire liberals revise 
Catechism, 395 
New Lights, 340 
New Orleans, church at, 431, 460 
New York, church at, 404, 404n., 
418, 421, 423, 460 
Newport, R. I., church at, 460 
Newton, Sir Isaac, 313, 324 
Niczwa, Council of (ni-see’-ah), 
18-22, 24, 27, 30fi. 

Nicene Creed, 21f., 24, 28, 30, 32, 
40, 127, 182, 146, 315, 471-473 
Nightingale, Florence, 376, 38é5n. 
nobles in Poland, 124; in Transyl- 
vania, 210; abandon Unitarian- 

ism, 182, 248 
Nonconformists, 288, 328f.; study 
in Holland, 313, 3384f. 
Non-Subscribing Presbyterian 
Church of Ireland, 341 
North Braintree, church at, 397 
North Church, Boston, 393 
Northumberland, Penn., church at, 
366, 404 
Norton, Andrews, 415, 435 
Noyon (nwah-yon’), 89 
Nuremberg, 113 
Nye, Stephen, 310, 318 


Religious 





ZZ 


Ochino, Bernardino (berr-nahr- 
dee’-no o-kee’-no), 71f., 74, 101, 
118, 126, 133; in Germany and 
England, 111f., 291; at Ziirich, 
111f., 115; in Poland, 113, 133; 
death, 113; probably antitrini- 
tarian, 114 

CEcolampadius (ee-co-lam-pay’-di- 
us), 40, 56, 59f. 

Old South Church, Boston, 418 


488 


Oldenbarnevelt, N. Y., church at, 
389n., 403 

Oliva, treaty of (o-lee’-fah), 176 

Oppeln (op’-peln), 184 ° 

Ostorod (os’-to-rote), 196, 203 

Owen, John, 305 


Pacific Coast, churches on, 452 

Packingham, Patrick, 293 

Padua (pah’-doo-ah), 102, 114, 220 

Paget, John, 272 

Pagnino, Sante (sahn’-tay pahn- 
yee’-no), 82 

Paleologus, Jacobus (pay-lee-ol’- 
o-gus), 239 

Palatinate, see Rhine Palatinate 

Paleario, Aonio (ah-o’-nee-o pah- 
lay-ah’-ree-o), 72f., 106 

Paley, William, 346 

Palmer, Thomas Fyshe (fish), 374 

Panoplist, The, 407, 410-418, 419, 
4.23 

Paris,, church at, 379; Unitarian, 
mission at, 460 

parish and church, 416 

Park Street Church, Boston, 409 

Parker, Theodore, 434-441, 448, 
453, 458; South Boston sermon, 
436f.; preaches in Boston, 438- 
440 

Parris, Dr. George van, 292 

Particular Baptists, 338n. 

Paruta, Nicola (nee’-co-lah pah- 
roo’-tah), 114 

patrons of churches in Poland, 
128n. 

Paul, teaching about Jesus, 9f., 31 

Paul of Samosata (sa-mos’-a-tah), 
15, 154 

Paulianists, 15 

Paulus, Gregory (pow’-loos), 130- 
132, 139-141, 146 

Pavia (pah-vee’-ah), 104, 117 

Pax Dissidentium, 145 

Pecs (paych), 234-236, 257f. 

Pecsi, Simon, (pay’-chee), 253 

Peel, Sir Robert, 382 


INDEX 


Peirce, James, 335f., 338, 352n. 

Penn, William, 313 

Pennsylvania, 390, 403f.; Unita- 
rianism in, 403 

person, the theological term, 30, 
30n., 317 

Peters, Jan (jahn pay’-terss), 294 

Philadelphia, 366f.; church at, 
403f., 418 

Philip of Hesse (hes’-sa), 112 

Phi’-lo, 10 

Philpot, John, 293 

Photinians, 216 

Pho-ti’-nus, 216 

Picardie (pee-cahr-dee’), 89 

Pilgrim Fathers, 181, 183n., 193, 
197n., 287, 391 

Pinczovians (pin-cho’-vi-ans), 128, 
130, 133 

Pinczow (pin’-choof), 128f., 132; 
synods at, 127, 130f. ‘ 

Piotrkow (pee-otr’-koof), Diet of, 
133 

Plymouth, Mass., church at, 391, 
404 

Plymouth 
in, 401 

Podlachia (pod-lay’-kee-ah), 128 

Poland, history of, 123f.; Refor- 
mation in, 124f. 

Polish Brethren, 148, 202, 223 

Polish churches, David’s case re- 
ferred to the, 241, 243, 247 

Porter, John Scott, 379 

Portland, Maine, church at, 400 

Posen (po’-zen), 151 

Post-office Mission, 461 

Potter, William J., 457 

Pounds, John, 385n. 

Poupin (poo-pan’), 84 

Prayer Book, 286, 343, 347, 349- 
351, 398f.; revised by Clarke, 
825n., 351 

predestination, doctrine of, 34 

Presbyterianism, 287, 328, 330f. 

Presbyterians become Unitarian, 
337f. 


County, Unitarianism 


INDEX 


Price, Richard, 352, 355, 357; in- 
fluence in America, 397f. 

Priestley, Joseph, 345, 349, 352, 
354f., 357-368, 370f., 375, 383; 
beliefs of, 411f.; influence of in 
America, 366, 390, 397f., 403f., 
427; founds Unitarian churches 
in America, 404 

Prince, John, 400 

Princeton, 403 

Protestant Reformation, 38-42 

Protestantism crushed in Poland, 
180 

Prussia, Antitrinitarianism in, 
106; Socinians in, 181f., 185-187, 
190-194 

Przypkowski 
192 

Ptolemy (tol’-e-my), 80, 91 

Puritans, 287, 328; in Massachu- 
setts, 391 

Pynchon, William, 392 


(pzhip-kof’-skee), 


Quakers, 163, 188, 330; influenced 
by Anabaptists, 45; see also 
Friends 

Quaternity instead of Trinity, 61, 
107 

quicunque vult, 473 

Quincy, church at, 397 

Quintana, Juan de (hoo-ahn’ dha 
kwin-tah’-nah), 55f., 59 


Racovia, 159 

Racovian Catechism, 159-161, 202, 
204, 239n., 266, 296, 302n., 304f. 

Radecki, Alexius (rah-dets’-kee), 
166; Bishop, 253, 255 

Radical controversy, 441 

Radicalism, 443f., 454-456; in the 
West, 462 

Radziwill, Nicholas (rahd-zhee’- 
vil), 1382; Boguslaw (bo-goos’- 
lahf), 190; Janus, 190 

Rakoczy, George I (rah’-ko-tsee), 
253f.; George II, 174, 184, 256 

Rakow (rah’-koof), 141, 146, 151f., 


489 


159; school at, 146, 152, 157, 171, 
202; synods at, 146, 152-154; 
Socinians driven from, 170-172, 
191, 198f. 

Ratibor (rah’-tee-bor), 184 

reason in religion, 26, 151, 156, 
162, 204f., 295, 313, 427, 431, 468 

received religions, 231, 275 

Reformation, see Protestant Re- 
formation 

Reformation, in England, 286; in 
Italy, 65, 70-73; in the Grisons, 
74; in Poland, 125, 144; in Tran- 
sylvania, 213f. 

Reformed Church in Poland, 125, 
127, 132, 143f., 154f., 176; in 
Holland, 195, 198, 200, 204; in 
Transylvania, 215, 221, 231 

Reformers, early, uncertain as to 
orthodox doctrines, 39-41 

religious liberty, see toleration 

Remonstrant Synod, 341 

Remonstrants, 188, 199, 202, 256, 
288, 295, 318, 322; Socinians seek 
union with, 155, 197f.; aid So- 
cinians, 179, 185, 191, 199; aid 
Unitarians of Transylvania, 199, 
260; influenced by Socinianism, 
196, 198, 200, 205 

Renaissance, 37 

Renato, Camillo (cah-mil’-lo ray- 
nah’-to), 76-78, 106, 114, 117 

Revival of Learning, 37 

Revolution, American, 357, 361, 
395, 397f., 401, 404, 436; Eng- 
lish, 829; French, 355, 364f.; in 
Hungary, 271, 275 

Reyna, Cassiodoro de (cas-see-o- 
do’-ro dhay ray’-ee-nah), 291 

Rhedei, Francis (red’-ay-ee), 182 

Rhine Palatinate, Socinians in, 
181, 186f., 192 

Ricardo, David, 385n. 

Rijnsburg (rines’-boorg), 201 

Ripley, George, 435 

Robber Council, 30 

Robertson, William, 344f., 350 


490 


Rogers, John, 395 

Roman Catholic, see Catholic 
Roscoe, William, 385n. 
Rothenburg (ro’-ten-boork), 49 
Roznow (roz’-noof), 177 
Rudawki (roo-dahf’-kee), 191 
Rumanians, 211, 271, 280 
Russell, Lord John, 382 

Russia, war with, 173 

Rutow (roo’-to), 191 


Sabbatarianism, 251-253, 255 
Sabellianism, 16f., 40, 62; in 
Church of England, 317, 319 

Sabellius, 15 

Saco, church at, 400 

St. Bartholomew, Massacre of, 224 

St. Gallen (sahnkt gahl’-len), 67 

St. Louis, church at, 431 

Salem, Puritan churches at, 391f.; 
Unitarian churches at, 400, 426 

Salters’ Hall, 406; asserably in, 
336-340, 357 

Saluzzo (sah-loot’-so), 104 

Samosatenians, 15 

San Francisco, church at, 445 

Sandomir (sahn-do-meer’), 134, 
164 

Sandwich, church divided at, 409 

Sanitary Commission, 447 

Sargent, John T., 439 

Sarnicki, Stanislaw (stahn-iss’-lahf 
sahrn-yit’-skee), 131 

‘Sattler, Michael (zaht’-ler), 49 

Save (sah’-va), 216 

Savoy, 108 

Saxons, 211, 213f., 226, 231 

Scandinavians, missionary work 
among, 460 

Schaffhausen (shahf’-how-zen), 96 

scheme of comprehension, 330 

Schlichting (shlich’-ting), 
194 

Schmalz (shmalts), 159 

Schmiegel (shmee’-gel), 143 

Schomann (sho’-mahn), his cate- 
chism, 141, 159 


172, 


INDEX 


Schools, Socinian in Poland, 151, 
171 (see also Rakow); Uni- 
tarian in Transylvania, 280, 257, 
277, 280; attempt to crush, 272f. 

Schwendi (shwen’-dee), General, 
233 

Secemin (set-sem’-in), synod at, 
127 

Segesvar (sheg’-esh-var), Diet of, 
222 

Semi-Arians, 21, 24, 324 

Semi-judaizers, 139 

Separatists, 287; in America, 391 

Serveto, Miguel, alias Reves (mee- 
ghel’ serr-vay’-to ah’-lee-ahs 
ray-vess’), 52n. 

Servetus, Michael, chaps. viii, xi, 
xii, 40f., 51f., 116,, 1182205 223; 
241, 243, 291, 302n., 442; early 
life and education, 53-55; at 
Bologna and Augsburg, 55f.; at 
Basel, 56, 58-60; at Strassburg, 
57, 59f.; first books against 
Trinity, 58-60; their wide in- 
fluence, 58, 63f., 66, 74, 76, 89, 
116, 127f., 139, 186, 202, 216, 266; 
in Paris, 79f.; at Lyon, 79; dis- 
covers circulation of blood, 80, 
85; at Vienne, 81-86; edits 
Ptolemy and Bible, 80, 82, 91; 
publishes Christianismi Restitu- 
tio, 84; trial at Vienne, 86; at 
Geneva, 59, 89-97; burned at 
stake, 87, 97, 112; character, 
100; teaching, 61f.; not a Uni- 
tarian but a Sabellian, 62 

Shaftesbury, Earl of, 297 

Shelburne, Lord, 361 

Sherlock, William, 319, 322, 831; 
read in America, 393 

Sherman, John, 402, 413 

Siebenbiirgen (zee’-ben-biir-gen), 
212n. : 

Siena (see-ay’-nah), 71, 114, 117n., 
148 

Sieninski 
151, 170f; 


(chen-yin’-skee), 146, 


INDEX 


Sienkiewicz, Henryk (chen-kyay’- 
vich), 178n. 

Sigismund I (sij’-iss-mund), 212 

Sigismund Augustus II, 125, 144 

Sigismund III Wasa (vah’-zah), 
167 

Siko (shee’-ko), 252 

Silesia, Socinians in, 181, 184, 186, 
192 

Sirmium, 216 

Skaricza, Matthew 
saw), 235 

Skrzynno (skzhin’-naw), synod at, 
137 

Slavkov (slahf’-kof), 113 

Smith, William, 376 

Society for Promoting Christian 
Knowledge of the Scriptures, 
371 

Socinian, the name, 148, 316; ex- 
iles aided from England, 309 

Socinianism, 151f., 157; in Poland, 
chaps. xvii, xviii; in Prussia, 
172; in Holland, 391, chap. xx.; 
church government, 153; char- 
acter of, 162f.; beliefs (see Ra- 
covian Catechism); modified in 
Holland, 204f.; becomes Uni- 
tarianism, 205; in England, 205, 
290, 295-298, 312f.; in America, 
393, 397; see also Unitarianism 

Socinians, 151f., 155, 239n., 303; 
called Arians, 135, 146, 148n., 
154, 168f., 167, 170, 172, 175, 178; 
called Anabaptists, 134f., 148n.; 
missions, 1538, 156; seek union 
with other churches, 154f., 197f.; 
persecuted in Poland, 167-172; 
driven from Rakow, 169-171; 
banished from Poland, 174-179; 
exiles in Transylvania, 181-184, 
256; in Silesia, 184-186; in Rhine 
Palatinate, 186f.; in Holstein, 
188f.; in Brandenburg, 189; in 
Prussia, 190-194; in America, 
190, 206n. 

Socinus, Faustus, 114-116, 147-151, 


(shkah’-rit- 


491 


156, 158f., 167f., 304; in Tran- 
sylvania, 150, 241f., 245; death, 
158 

Socinus, Lelius, 114-116, 118, 126, 
130, 148; in London, 291 

Sommer, John (zom’-mer), 239 

Soner, Ernest (zo’-ner), 158, 196 

South, Robert, 320f.; read in 
America, 393 

Southern states, growth of Uni- 
tarianism in, 430, 445; church 
extension in, 460, 465 

Sozini, Lelio (lay’-lee-o so-tsee’- 
nee), 114 

Sozzini, Fausto (fah-oo’-sto sod- 
zee’-nee), 148 

Sparks, Jared, 414 

Speyer (shpi’-er), Diet of, 44, 213 

Spirit of the Pilgrims, 423, 426 

Spiritus, 126 

Stanearo, Francesco (frahn-ches’- 
co stahn-cah’-ro), 77, 118, 126f., 
129; teaching, 126; in Poland, 
126f., 129; in Transylvania, 217, 
221 

States General of Holland pass 
decrees against Socinianism, 
197f. 

Stegmann (shteg’-mahn), 187 

Steinville (shtine’-veel), 261 

Stephen, St., of Hungary, 213 

Stoinski (sto-in’-skee), 159 

Strangers’ Church, 290f., 293 

Strassburg (shtrahss’-boork), 49, 
57 

Stuart, Moses, 415, 426 

Stuckey, Nathaniel, 304 

Stuttgard (shtoot’-gahrt, 46 

subscription to creeds, etc., 326, 
337, 340f., 344-347 

substance, the theological term, 
16n., 20, 22 

Sultan, 212 

Sweden, war with, 1738f. 

Sylv@ of Modrzewski, 144 

Sylvanus, Johannes (yo-hahn’-ness 
sil-vah’-noos), 186 


492 


Syracuse, church at, 431; Con- 
ference at, 452 

Szekely, Bishop (say’-kely), 271 

Szekely, Moses, 212n., 249 

Szekely Keresztur (kerr’-ess-toor), 
277 

Szekler (sek’-ler) churches, cus- 
toms of, 276f. 

Szeklerland, 210, 230, 288, 251f., 
255, 261, 271, 280 

Szeklers, 210f., 214f., 
276, 279f. 

Szent Abrahami, Bishop Michael 
(sent ah’-braw-hah-mee), 266f. 

Szent Ivany (sent iv’-ahn-yee), 
269 

Szent Rontas (sent ron’-tash), 264 

Szepes (sep’-esh) County, 182 


237, 264, 


Tagart, Edward, 272 

Tatars (tah’-tars), 211, 255f. 

Taunton, Mass., church divided at, 
404: 

Taylor, John, 357 

Temes County (tem’-esh), 234 

Temesvar (tem’-esh-vahr), 234 

Tertullian, 14, 16 

Terwoort, Hendrik (terr-vohrt’), 
294, 

Test Act, 329n., 363, 364n., 378 

Thacher, Samuel C., 411 

Theater meetings, 453 

Theiss (tice), 213 

Theodosius, 24 

Thirty-nine Articles, 286, 290, 326, 
334, 344f., 347, 364 


Thékély, Count Stephen (t6’- 
kély), 182 

Thorn (torn), 156 

Thursday Lecture, 488f. 

Tillotson, Archbishop, 297, 310, 


313f.; read in America, 393 
Tisza (tiss’-aw), 213, 233 
Tiziano (teet-see-ah’-no), 75f. 
Toledo (to-lay’-dho), Council of, 
A72n. 


INDEX 


toleration in religion, at first fa- 
vored by reformers, 98; in Tur- 
key, 68, 214n.; in the Grisons, 74, 
214; furthered by Servetus’s 
death, 98f.; in Poland, 125, 145, 
166, 180n., 193; in Transylvania, 
214f., 224, 265; in Holland, 195; 
Joseph II’s Edict of, 267; an es- 
sential of Unitarianism, 469 

Toleration Act, 288f., 315, 329f., 
336n. 

Tolnai Lukas, (tol’-noy), 234 

Torda (tor’-daw), 238, 262; Diets 
of, 214f., 224, 229; synods at, 
223, 288, 240f. 

total depravity, doctrine of, 34 

Toulouse (too-looze’), 54 

Trajan, 210, 213 

Transcendentalism, 482f., 441 

Transylvania, 209; history of, 
210f.; religious history, 213; Re- 
formation in, 213-215; Socinians 
in, 181-185, 192f.; Unitarianism 
in, 186, 215-281, 379 

Trent, Council of, 143 

Trenton, N. -Y.,-echurch®™ at, 9206. 
389n. 

Trie, Guillaume (ghee-yome’ tree), 
85f. 

Trinitarian, the name, 92, 229f.; 

Trinitarian Controversy, chap. 
xxix, 315f.; heard of in Amer- 
ica, 393 

Trinity, not taught in the Gospels, 
9; doctrine of; 24f., 27, 32f., 54, 
62; belief in made compulsory, 
24; a stumbling-block to Jews 
and Mohammedans, 9, 53f., 61; 
a scriptural, 132, 332n.; Ser- 
vetus on, see De _ Trinitatis 
Erroribus 

Tritheism in Church of England, 
320f. 

Tritheists, 131, 134; banished from 
Poland, 142 

Tiibingen (tii’/-bing-en), 103 


INDEX 


Tudela (too’-dhay-lah), 53 

Turin (too’-rin), 117 

Turkey, 248, 257 

Turks, 37, 211, 256-259 

Tyndale’s New Testament, 290 

Tyskiewicz, Jan (jahn tiss-kyay’- 
vich), 168f. 


Ukraine (oo-krayn’), 173 

Ulster, Synod of, 340 

Ungvar (oong’-vahr), 233 

Unitarian, The, 464 

Unitarian, the name, 148n., 229f,, 

. 254n., 316n., 352, 368, 375, 404n., 
410-413 

Unitarian Book Society, 371f., 378 

Unitarian Church of Hungary, 
275; in Transylvania, organiza- 
tion of, 246, 277f. 

Unitarian controversy in Amer- 
ica, chap. xxxv 

Unitarian creed proposed, 384, 
453, 456 

Unitarian Fund, 270, 373, 375, 
378 

Unitarian Home Missionary Col- 
lege, 383n. 

Unitarian Methodists, 374, 383 

Unitarian publications, 444, 447 

Unitarian Society for the Promo- 
tion of Christian Knowledge, 
a71f. 

Unitarian Sunday-school Society, 
421 

Unitarian Tracts, 310, 318 

Unitarian Year Book, 439, 457f., 
462 

Unitarianism, essential meaning 
of, 5, 7, 467-469; as a restora- 
tion of primitive Christianity, 8; 
begins early in the Reformation, 
5, 34; arises among Anabaptists, 
46, 50, 52; causes of slow spread 
of, 118, 123, 281, 442f.; Legal- 
ized in Hungary, 271, 273; re- 
cent progress in Hungary, 278f., 


493 


275-280; see also Antitrinitarian- 
ism, Socinianism 

Unitarianism, in Pennsylvania, 
390, 403f.; beginnings of in 
America, chap. xxxix; at King’s 
Chapel, 398f. 409; at Salem, 
400, 410; at Boston, 401; at 
Harvard College, 401; in Con- 
necticut, 402f.; in Massachusetts, 
418 

Unitarianism, American, not of 
English or Socinian origin, 
389f.; of Congregational origin, 


3891; among Dissenters, chap. 
xxx; in Church of England, 
chap.) ;xxix; Pioneers of vin 


England, chap. xxvii; in Ire- 
land, 339-341; in Scotland, 339, 
374; in Wales, 339 

Unitarians, often called Arians, 
25, 135, 146, 148n., 154, 163f., 
167, 170-172, 175, 178; in Hun- 
gary, beliefs of, 278; character 
of, 279; in Transylvania op- 
pressed by Calvinists, chap. 
xxiv; by Catholics, chap. xxv 

United Protestant Dissenters, 331 

Unity, 461 

Unity Clubs, 461 

Universalism, 402, 422, 427n. 


Valaszuti 
George, 235 

Valdez, Juan de (hoo-ahn’ dhay 
vahl-dayth’), 71f., 76, 106, 117 

Valens, 24 

Valtellina (vahl-tel-lee’-nah), 76f. 

van der Kemp, Francis A., 206n., 
389 

Vandals converted to Arian Chris- 
tianity, 25 

Vane, Sir Henry, 301 

Venice, Reformation spreads in, 
65; Antitrinitarianism in, 66, 69, 
114; council at, 67, 69, 118 

Vicenza (vee-chen’-tsah), 67, 69, 


(vah’-law-soo-tee), 


49 4 


75; tradition of conferences at, 
68n. 

Vienne (vee-en’), 81f., 88 

Villanovanus, Michael, 79 

Villanueva (veel-yah-noo-ay’-vah), 
53 

Villeneuve, Michel de (mee-shel’ 
de veel-név’), 79, 85f. 

Viret (vee-ray’), 84 

Vistula, 168, 171, 173 

Volhynia (vol-hin’-ee-ah), 171-173 

Volkel (f6l/-kel), 159 

Vordsmarti (vé’-résh-mawr-tee), 
234 

Vorst, Conrad (forst), 196, 296 


Waldenses, 125, 213, 216 

Wallacks, 211, 271 

Wallis, John, 319 

Waltham, Mass., church divided 
at, 425 

Wardlaw, Ralph, 379 

Ware, Henry, 407, 
Henry, Jr., 435 

Warrington Academy, 359f. 

Warsaw, 124, 169, 172, 178; Diets 
of, 170, 191 

Washington, D. C., church at, 418, 
459 

Washington Territory, 460 

Washington, George, 367 

Waterland, Daniel, 327 

Wedgwood, Josiah, 385n. 

Weissenburg (vi’-sen-boork), 218n. 

Wengrow (van’-groof), 128; syn- 
ods at, 135, 137 

West Church, Boston, 396 

West Roxbury, church at, 436 

Western Sanitary Commission, 447 

Western states, growth of Unitari- 
anism in, 430; church extension 
in, 465 

Western 
AGI 

Western Unitarian Association, 
464 


410, 415; 


Sunday-school Society, 


INDEX 


Western Unitarian Conference, 
442, 445, 452, 461-464 

Western Woman’s Unitarian Con- 
ference, 461 

Westminster Catechism, 338 

Westminster Confession, 340, 392 

Whiston, William, 3824f., 332n- 
335; read in America, 393 

Whitefield, George (whit’-field), 
394, 396 

Widawski (vee-dahf’-skee), 190 

Wied (veet), Socinians at, 187 

Wightman, Edward, 294, 296 

Willard, Samuel, 408 

William I, 323 

William and Mary, 329 

William (the Silent), of Orange, 
195 

Wilno (vil’/-naw), 166, 169 


Wiszowaty, Andrew (vish-o- 
vah’-ty).8 177, >: 179; 182seelsiae 
297; Tobias, 175 

Wittenberg (vit’-ten-berrk), 38, 
127, 213, 220 

Wojdowski (voy-dof’-skee), 196, 
203 


Wolverhampton Chapel case, 376f., 
380f. 
Women’s 
460 

Wonderbook, The, 48 

Woods, Leonard, 415 

Worcester, Mass., church divided 
at, 404 

Worcester, Noah, 409, 413; Samuel, 
405, 413 

World War, 124, 211 

Worms (vohrmss), 49 

Wright, Richard, 378f. 

Wirttemberg = (viirt’-tem-berrk), 
103 

Wyclif’s Bible, 286, 290 


Auxiliary Conference, 


Yale College attacked by White- 
field, 394 
Yates, James, 379 


INDEX 495 


Year Book controversy, 457f., 462 

Young Men’s Christian Unions, 
453 

Young People’s Religious Union, 
465 


Zips County (tzips), 182 


Zsuki, Laszlo (lahs’-lo zhoo’-kee), 
268f. 

Ziirich (tsii’-rich), 40, 44, 74, 88, 
96, 105, 109; Antitrinitarianism 
at, 111-116, 149 

Zwingli (tsving’-lee), 40, 44, 57, 
11 


Revere We hd Bee a 
Phe) Sac Sean ey et : 


* aretegtt 
pe, 


ves 


1) 
8 eo 
Free 


to Bae 
ree. sie 


¥ = 


bd hea 
oes 
is i 
4 i 


TY 





F vO u TAY 


a ia cae ie 


t 
- 


a ‘ tay ‘ni OG, ih " ae 
ie a Baltes in if for 
ae SS ir eral ev 


ae 0 “ i ye 


i i 


oe ea vie , 


ie vie bs ie a 
¥ aut lini ve oe 





peo = 3 < : ‘ aes z : = = ees 


Sea 


rz 


Bie 





